chanduv23
10-28 02:43 PM
I will definitely send all these letters today or tomorrow. But why are we not sending to all the service centers? Why only Texas? There are many cases at Vermont, California service centers which were never transferred to Texas. Would it not be appropriate to include these service centers in this campaign?
jungalee - most of the i 485 handling is done at TSC and NSC.
Dear members - This is an effort endorsed by IV core. Please participate in this campaign and make it a success.
It would be great if you wish to volunteer towards this effort - contact nk2006 or pd_recapturing or itisnotfunny and you can see yourself volunteering actively for this effort.
jungalee - most of the i 485 handling is done at TSC and NSC.
Dear members - This is an effort endorsed by IV core. Please participate in this campaign and make it a success.
It would be great if you wish to volunteer towards this effort - contact nk2006 or pd_recapturing or itisnotfunny and you can see yourself volunteering actively for this effort.
wallpaper %IMG_DESC_1%
aadimanav
01-03 12:56 AM
Part 2 continued....
USCIS delays have become so excessive in this arena that many foreign nationals have sought relief in federal court. The Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 (APA), which governs federal agency actions and decisions, requires that an agency resolve a matter presented to it within a "reasonable" time frame. See 8 U.S.C. 555(b). Using the APA, foreign nationals have argued that waiting for two or more years for a decision on an immigration application is "unreasonable" under the statute. The cases are divided, but a majority of courts have agreed that making a foreign national wait years and years just for a decision on his or her application is unreasonable. As a result, many judges have ordered the FBI and USCIS to complete pending name check cases within 60 or 90 days where a foreign national has been waiting for two or more years. Some judges have noted that security concerns are not to be taken lightly, but this only reinforces the fact that such issues should be resolved in a matter of weeks as opposed to years.
The success or failure of litigation in this arena ultimately turns on the court's reading of a jurisdiction-stripping provision embedded in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as amended by the Real ID Act of 2005. The INA precludes judicial review of any "decision or action" of the USCIS that is "specified [under INA] to be in the discretion" of the USCIS. See 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii). In defending challenges to delayed applications, the U.S. Attorney's office has argued that the adjudication of a green card application, including the pace of adjudication, is committed to the sole discretion of the USCIS, because the INA specifies that a decision to approve or deny a green card application is within the discretion of the USCIS. See 8 U.S.C. 1255(a).
None of the circuit courts have ruled on this issue, but the relationship between USCIS delay and the role of the judiciary has become a "national judicial debate" at the district court level. See Saleem v. Keisler , 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80044 (W.D. Wis. Oct. 26, 2007). Some courts have bought the government's argument, holding that a discretionary "action" includes every interim action taken along the way leading up to an ultimate decision on an application. See Safadi v. Howard , 466 F.Supp. 2d 696, 699 (E.D. Vir. 2006). Under this theory, a stalled name check is simply action along the way to a final decision. The majority of courts have rejected this reading of the statute, holding that USCIS' discretion only applies to the ultimate decision on an application, not the pace of its adjudication. As one court stated, "it would require Orwellian twisting of the word ["action"] to conclude that it means a failure to adjudicate." Saleem v. Keisler, supra. Similarly, U.S. District Judge Stewart Dalzell recognized that the INA grants discretion to the USCIS to grant or deny a green card application, but "national security does not require that it also have absolute discretion to delay such an application to Dickensian lengths." Cao v. Upchurch , 496 F.Supp. 2d 569, 574 (E.D. Pa 2007). Put simply, "there is a difference between the [USCIS'] discretion over how to resolve an application and the [USCIS'] discretion over whether it resolves an application." Singh v. Still , 470 F. Supp. 2d 1064, 1068 (N.D. Cal. 2007).
The U.S. Attorney's office has also argued that the USCIS is not required to make a decision on green card or naturalization applications since the INA does not specify a time frame for the agency's decision. See Assadzadeh v. Mueller , 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80915 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 31, 2007). The government's argument is based on Norton v. So. Utah Wilderness Alliance , 542 U.S. 55 (2004), where the U.S. Supreme Court held that a plaintiff can succeed in compelling an agency to act under the APA if and only if the action sought to be compelled is a "discrete action" that the agency is "legally required" to take. Under the government's theory, the USCIS cannot be compelled to act where its organic statute fails to require it to make a decision. But, under Norton , an agency's regulation with the force of law can create a legal duty. Arguably, the USCIS is legally required to act on applications presented to it, as its own regulations provide that it inform applicants of its decisions. See 8 C.F.R. 245.2(a)(5)(i) (green card applications); 8 C.F.R. 316.14(b)(1) (naturalization applications). Most judges in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania appear to accept this argument. For example, in Kaplan v. Chertoff , 481 F. Supp. 2d 370, 399 (E.D. Pa. 2007), Judge Eduardo Robreno held that the USCIS has a duty to adjudicate green card and naturalization applications, based, in part, on the agency's own regulations.
Once a court determines that its jurisdiction is not stripped under the INA, it usually faces little difficulty finding a cause of action under the APA. Of course, determining whether an agency has acted unreasonably is a fact-intensive inquiry, but the government's position does not look promising where the USCIS has failed to perform three distinct background checks for two or more years without any indication of special circumstances. See, e.g., Saleem v. Keisler, supra . The government has argued that flagging agency resources are to blame, but many courts find little sympathy for such posturing. In addressing the issue of agency resources, one court stated that the USCIS should take its complaints up with Congress. See Liang v. Attorney General , 07-cv-2349-CW (N.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2007). "The executive branch must decide for itself how best to meet its statutory duties; this Court can only decide whether or not those duties have been met." Id . Even factoring in flagging appropriations, the court held that a two-and-a-half-year delay is unreasonable as a matter of law. Id .
With more than 340,000 cases in the name check backlog, it is not clear when some foreign nationals will ever have their cases resolved at the agency level. At least with the advantageous decisions handed down from the federal district courts, foreign nationals have the hope of going into court to request an expeditious resolution to their name checks. In the majority of situations, it appears that litigation is the only option, but at least an option exists.
Please email the author at gforney@wolfblock.com with questions about this article.
USCIS delays have become so excessive in this arena that many foreign nationals have sought relief in federal court. The Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 (APA), which governs federal agency actions and decisions, requires that an agency resolve a matter presented to it within a "reasonable" time frame. See 8 U.S.C. 555(b). Using the APA, foreign nationals have argued that waiting for two or more years for a decision on an immigration application is "unreasonable" under the statute. The cases are divided, but a majority of courts have agreed that making a foreign national wait years and years just for a decision on his or her application is unreasonable. As a result, many judges have ordered the FBI and USCIS to complete pending name check cases within 60 or 90 days where a foreign national has been waiting for two or more years. Some judges have noted that security concerns are not to be taken lightly, but this only reinforces the fact that such issues should be resolved in a matter of weeks as opposed to years.
The success or failure of litigation in this arena ultimately turns on the court's reading of a jurisdiction-stripping provision embedded in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as amended by the Real ID Act of 2005. The INA precludes judicial review of any "decision or action" of the USCIS that is "specified [under INA] to be in the discretion" of the USCIS. See 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii). In defending challenges to delayed applications, the U.S. Attorney's office has argued that the adjudication of a green card application, including the pace of adjudication, is committed to the sole discretion of the USCIS, because the INA specifies that a decision to approve or deny a green card application is within the discretion of the USCIS. See 8 U.S.C. 1255(a).
None of the circuit courts have ruled on this issue, but the relationship between USCIS delay and the role of the judiciary has become a "national judicial debate" at the district court level. See Saleem v. Keisler , 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80044 (W.D. Wis. Oct. 26, 2007). Some courts have bought the government's argument, holding that a discretionary "action" includes every interim action taken along the way leading up to an ultimate decision on an application. See Safadi v. Howard , 466 F.Supp. 2d 696, 699 (E.D. Vir. 2006). Under this theory, a stalled name check is simply action along the way to a final decision. The majority of courts have rejected this reading of the statute, holding that USCIS' discretion only applies to the ultimate decision on an application, not the pace of its adjudication. As one court stated, "it would require Orwellian twisting of the word ["action"] to conclude that it means a failure to adjudicate." Saleem v. Keisler, supra. Similarly, U.S. District Judge Stewart Dalzell recognized that the INA grants discretion to the USCIS to grant or deny a green card application, but "national security does not require that it also have absolute discretion to delay such an application to Dickensian lengths." Cao v. Upchurch , 496 F.Supp. 2d 569, 574 (E.D. Pa 2007). Put simply, "there is a difference between the [USCIS'] discretion over how to resolve an application and the [USCIS'] discretion over whether it resolves an application." Singh v. Still , 470 F. Supp. 2d 1064, 1068 (N.D. Cal. 2007).
The U.S. Attorney's office has also argued that the USCIS is not required to make a decision on green card or naturalization applications since the INA does not specify a time frame for the agency's decision. See Assadzadeh v. Mueller , 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80915 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 31, 2007). The government's argument is based on Norton v. So. Utah Wilderness Alliance , 542 U.S. 55 (2004), where the U.S. Supreme Court held that a plaintiff can succeed in compelling an agency to act under the APA if and only if the action sought to be compelled is a "discrete action" that the agency is "legally required" to take. Under the government's theory, the USCIS cannot be compelled to act where its organic statute fails to require it to make a decision. But, under Norton , an agency's regulation with the force of law can create a legal duty. Arguably, the USCIS is legally required to act on applications presented to it, as its own regulations provide that it inform applicants of its decisions. See 8 C.F.R. 245.2(a)(5)(i) (green card applications); 8 C.F.R. 316.14(b)(1) (naturalization applications). Most judges in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania appear to accept this argument. For example, in Kaplan v. Chertoff , 481 F. Supp. 2d 370, 399 (E.D. Pa. 2007), Judge Eduardo Robreno held that the USCIS has a duty to adjudicate green card and naturalization applications, based, in part, on the agency's own regulations.
Once a court determines that its jurisdiction is not stripped under the INA, it usually faces little difficulty finding a cause of action under the APA. Of course, determining whether an agency has acted unreasonably is a fact-intensive inquiry, but the government's position does not look promising where the USCIS has failed to perform three distinct background checks for two or more years without any indication of special circumstances. See, e.g., Saleem v. Keisler, supra . The government has argued that flagging agency resources are to blame, but many courts find little sympathy for such posturing. In addressing the issue of agency resources, one court stated that the USCIS should take its complaints up with Congress. See Liang v. Attorney General , 07-cv-2349-CW (N.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2007). "The executive branch must decide for itself how best to meet its statutory duties; this Court can only decide whether or not those duties have been met." Id . Even factoring in flagging appropriations, the court held that a two-and-a-half-year delay is unreasonable as a matter of law. Id .
With more than 340,000 cases in the name check backlog, it is not clear when some foreign nationals will ever have their cases resolved at the agency level. At least with the advantageous decisions handed down from the federal district courts, foreign nationals have the hope of going into court to request an expeditious resolution to their name checks. In the majority of situations, it appears that litigation is the only option, but at least an option exists.
Please email the author at gforney@wolfblock.com with questions about this article.
thomachan72
01-27 10:24 AM
Anyway to finalize this wonderful discussion, let all of us, who have seen / discussed this issue, take an oath to never go via UK again. I join anybody who is willing to take this oath. "NO MORE TRAVEL TO INDIA VIA UK. I WILL PAY THE EXTRA $$$$ TO FLY VIA OTHER ALTERNATIVE ROUTES THAT DONT REQUIRE A TRANSIT VISA".
2011 %IMG_DESC_2%
royus77
06-29 05:08 PM
Heard the same from my lawyer, she has changed her tune completely in 2 days. Now she says that she is hearing the same thing and is possible. They are working through the weekend and has asked me to keep my blackberry on me at all times as they will be providing emails updates every 4 hours or if and when the said bulletin is released.
Will USICS will release on the weekend?If they have any thing it should be today or they will do it on monday evening . They will do it on monday so that they are safe and cover their skin ( always say they received 100000 Applications and they are good enough for the dates to go back)
Will USICS will release on the weekend?If they have any thing it should be today or they will do it on monday evening . They will do it on monday so that they are safe and cover their skin ( always say they received 100000 Applications and they are good enough for the dates to go back)
more...
pappu
01-07 09:08 PM
The campaign has begun. Lets all unite and make it successful. There is very slim chance of any legislative relief until after the Presidential elections. This is our best shot at this time.
Letter Template #7
<<Date>>
The Honorable George W. Bush
President of the United States
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. President:
I write today to urge you to fix America's broken legal employment-based immigration system. Highly skilled professionals in various high-technology fields currently facing a long wait of 6 to 12 years, find themselves trapped in a legal maze, and are unable to advance in their careers. Changing jobs, even with the same employer, means the process must be started over again.
Mr. President, you can make changes that would impart fairness and dignity to this arduously long process and improve the quality of life of these half a million hard-working professionals. Mr. President, I appeal to you to implement administrative reforms to:
Recapture administratively the unused visas for permanent residency to fulfill the congressional mandate of 140,000 green cards per year.
Revise the administrative definition of "same or similar" to allow slight additional job flexibility for legal immigrants awaiting adjudication of adjustment of status (I-485) petitions.
Allow filing of Adjustment of Status (Form I-485) when a visa number is not available.
Implement the existing interim rule to allow issuance of multi-year Employment Authorization Documents (EAD) and Advance Parole.
Allow visa revalidation in the United States.
Reinstate premium processing of Immigrant Petitions.The above fixes are urgently needed to fulfill your stated goal of attracting and retaining highly-skilled legal immigrants from around the world, eliminating bureaucratic inefficiency, and improving the lives of future Americans already living and working legally in the United States.
I thank you for your attention to this matter.
Respectfully,
Name:
Address:
Letter Template #7
<<Date>>
The Honorable George W. Bush
President of the United States
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. President:
I write today to urge you to fix America's broken legal employment-based immigration system. Highly skilled professionals in various high-technology fields currently facing a long wait of 6 to 12 years, find themselves trapped in a legal maze, and are unable to advance in their careers. Changing jobs, even with the same employer, means the process must be started over again.
Mr. President, you can make changes that would impart fairness and dignity to this arduously long process and improve the quality of life of these half a million hard-working professionals. Mr. President, I appeal to you to implement administrative reforms to:
Recapture administratively the unused visas for permanent residency to fulfill the congressional mandate of 140,000 green cards per year.
Revise the administrative definition of "same or similar" to allow slight additional job flexibility for legal immigrants awaiting adjudication of adjustment of status (I-485) petitions.
Allow filing of Adjustment of Status (Form I-485) when a visa number is not available.
Implement the existing interim rule to allow issuance of multi-year Employment Authorization Documents (EAD) and Advance Parole.
Allow visa revalidation in the United States.
Reinstate premium processing of Immigrant Petitions.The above fixes are urgently needed to fulfill your stated goal of attracting and retaining highly-skilled legal immigrants from around the world, eliminating bureaucratic inefficiency, and improving the lives of future Americans already living and working legally in the United States.
I thank you for your attention to this matter.
Respectfully,
Name:
Address:
jungalee43
11-14 08:42 PM
He has many posts on this forum. Click on his user ID and send him PM. Additionally this thread should help you.
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=22398
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=22398
more...
rcr_bulk
08-26 11:44 AM
While people are discussing about Vonage plan, I bought VG shares at around 50 cents after the news came out and boom sold today at $2.10....Kool 400% profit in just 4 days....
Thanks Vonage.....
You are the man
Thanks Vonage.....
You are the man
2010 %IMG_DESC_3%
prinive
07-11 11:30 AM
ABC NEWS missing.
ALL NEWS with PICTURES AND VIDEO : http://www.touchdownusa.org/floral/FloralProtest.html
ALL NEWS with PICTURES AND VIDEO : http://www.touchdownusa.org/floral/FloralProtest.html
more...
bobzibub
05-07 12:49 AM
Hi friends,
My husband and me work for the same company now. He applied in EB3 (India) and PD date with December 2006. I-140 approved and I-485 applied in July 2007. Got EAD and AP for both but still working on H1B (Not used EAD and AP).
From other company, in 2007, I applied for labor substitution and it is approved yesterday, which has PD Nov 2004 (EB3 - India). One of my friend working for this company and I got the reference last moment and I was not hoping for this approval.
Now I have to switch to this company as the company management are asking me to join the company. I read many threads in this forum and this thread too about multiple filings of I485s and withdraw one while applying other.
I read some people had no problems with multiple I-485s. But Murthy's advice is against this while others like Rajiv in favour of this.
Please advice me what could be the best in my case.
I have PG in engineering (CS) from India.
Thanks in advance
We may be talking about the same thing...I believe that ALIA as asked USCIS for clarificatin about spouses both filing (my wife and I both have.) Only I have no EADs or AP on my application. Just straight 485. My wife's 485 has EADs, APs, for both of us. Now both of our lawyers said it would be fine. It is not about what USCIS wants, however--it is about what they will lose court cases over. They can't possibly dissallow multiple applications after the fact, after we've paid for them. If USCIS was going to x-nay this, their window of opportunity is over. By not barring it, they've defacto allowed it.
Cheers,
-b
My husband and me work for the same company now. He applied in EB3 (India) and PD date with December 2006. I-140 approved and I-485 applied in July 2007. Got EAD and AP for both but still working on H1B (Not used EAD and AP).
From other company, in 2007, I applied for labor substitution and it is approved yesterday, which has PD Nov 2004 (EB3 - India). One of my friend working for this company and I got the reference last moment and I was not hoping for this approval.
Now I have to switch to this company as the company management are asking me to join the company. I read many threads in this forum and this thread too about multiple filings of I485s and withdraw one while applying other.
I read some people had no problems with multiple I-485s. But Murthy's advice is against this while others like Rajiv in favour of this.
Please advice me what could be the best in my case.
I have PG in engineering (CS) from India.
Thanks in advance
We may be talking about the same thing...I believe that ALIA as asked USCIS for clarificatin about spouses both filing (my wife and I both have.) Only I have no EADs or AP on my application. Just straight 485. My wife's 485 has EADs, APs, for both of us. Now both of our lawyers said it would be fine. It is not about what USCIS wants, however--it is about what they will lose court cases over. They can't possibly dissallow multiple applications after the fact, after we've paid for them. If USCIS was going to x-nay this, their window of opportunity is over. By not barring it, they've defacto allowed it.
Cheers,
-b
hair %IMG_DESC_4%
tanu_75
04-01 01:06 PM
OK, DOS buffer issue.
A. LAW. If there is no inventory in EB2 I/C (meaning demand). Theoretically DOS should make EB2 I/C CURRENT. DOS/CIS are not that dumb, or at least as dumb as before. I would say, they are very competent now and we should appreciate their work, pre-adjudicate, publish demand data (DOS), inventory data (CIS) processing time (DOS). THEY know, from PERM, I-140, there are at least 2K demand permonth from EB2 I/C. SO they will just safely move a couple of month of PD to make sure there is demand >2800 for India/China, so they don't have to make it CURRENT (per law)
If it is the law that they need to make it current, then if they don't, they are opening themselves to a strong possibility of a class-action lawsuit.
A. LAW. If there is no inventory in EB2 I/C (meaning demand). Theoretically DOS should make EB2 I/C CURRENT. DOS/CIS are not that dumb, or at least as dumb as before. I would say, they are very competent now and we should appreciate their work, pre-adjudicate, publish demand data (DOS), inventory data (CIS) processing time (DOS). THEY know, from PERM, I-140, there are at least 2K demand permonth from EB2 I/C. SO they will just safely move a couple of month of PD to make sure there is demand >2800 for India/China, so they don't have to make it CURRENT (per law)
If it is the law that they need to make it current, then if they don't, they are opening themselves to a strong possibility of a class-action lawsuit.
more...
bajjuri77
03-31 10:51 PM
Does it needs subscription or just one time donation? I have donated one time. But it still not working for me too.
hot %IMG_DESC_5%
greencard_fever
09-30 07:18 PM
Since 2004 EB2 is cleared, I am seeing less number of posts being made on IV.Yay I became a senior member, will that mean I will get a green card?
Dude not all 2004's got cleared..i am still waiting for approval and many more like me are still out there waiting to get greened..dont know when we will be approved..hopeing to get next month..:mad:
Dude not all 2004's got cleared..i am still waiting for approval and many more like me are still out there waiting to get greened..dont know when we will be approved..hopeing to get next month..:mad:
more...
house %IMG_DESC_17%
Amma
10-31 08:29 PM
I have done my part.
tattoo %IMG_DESC_6%
chanduv23
07-11 07:28 AM
http://samachar.com/showurl.php?rurl=http://sify.com/finance/fullstory.php?id=14490148
Green card seekers take to 'Gandhigiri' in US
Wednesday, 11 July , 2007, 11:13
Washington: In an eloquent display of Gandhigiri, unhappy Indian green card seekers sent hundreds of flowers to the US immigration agency to protest a last minute reversal in policy that would impede their way to permanent residency.
Inspired by the hit Hindi movie Lage Raho Munnabhai that extolled Gandhian ways of non-violent protest, the green card applicants plan to send around a thousand flower deliveries to US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Director Emilio Gonzalez in a three-day campaign that started on Tuesday.
The protest followed the abrupt reversal last week of a June announcement offering expedited processing of green card petitions for thousands of skilled foreign professionals working under H1-B visas - reserved for skilled workers in computing, engineering and other special professions.
Thousands of such visa holders scrambled and spent money on lawyers and medical exams to beat the July 1 deadline for green card applications. The abrupt change sent them back to the queue for 2008.
Besides India, skilled workers from China, Poland and many other countries will now have to spend more time and money to get the coveted green cards - a halfway house to US citizenship.
"The idea is to push them to honour their earlier notification," said Aman Kapoor, founder of Immigration Voice, a forum that inspired the unusual protest.
Indians are the worst hit by country quota caps for immigration visas, which treat a billion strong India, boasting a highly skilled workforce, on par with a country like Trinidad and Tobago of one million souls, he said.
On its part, the USCIS response was equally pacific. It plans to forward the flowers to Walter Reed Army Medical Centre and Bethesda Naval Hospital in Washington, the main facilities treating US soldiers wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan, said Gonzales in a statement on the agency website.
Green card seekers take to 'Gandhigiri' in US
Wednesday, 11 July , 2007, 11:13
Washington: In an eloquent display of Gandhigiri, unhappy Indian green card seekers sent hundreds of flowers to the US immigration agency to protest a last minute reversal in policy that would impede their way to permanent residency.
Inspired by the hit Hindi movie Lage Raho Munnabhai that extolled Gandhian ways of non-violent protest, the green card applicants plan to send around a thousand flower deliveries to US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Director Emilio Gonzalez in a three-day campaign that started on Tuesday.
The protest followed the abrupt reversal last week of a June announcement offering expedited processing of green card petitions for thousands of skilled foreign professionals working under H1-B visas - reserved for skilled workers in computing, engineering and other special professions.
Thousands of such visa holders scrambled and spent money on lawyers and medical exams to beat the July 1 deadline for green card applications. The abrupt change sent them back to the queue for 2008.
Besides India, skilled workers from China, Poland and many other countries will now have to spend more time and money to get the coveted green cards - a halfway house to US citizenship.
"The idea is to push them to honour their earlier notification," said Aman Kapoor, founder of Immigration Voice, a forum that inspired the unusual protest.
Indians are the worst hit by country quota caps for immigration visas, which treat a billion strong India, boasting a highly skilled workforce, on par with a country like Trinidad and Tobago of one million souls, he said.
On its part, the USCIS response was equally pacific. It plans to forward the flowers to Walter Reed Army Medical Centre and Bethesda Naval Hospital in Washington, the main facilities treating US soldiers wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan, said Gonzales in a statement on the agency website.
more...
pictures %IMG_DESC_7%
sanju
05-15 10:24 AM
Guys:
Based on the June Bulletin, I will be filing my I485 in June.
Now, I have H1-B(with my current company till Feb'2010 that I just got approved a month back.(not stamped in passport yet)
-- Should I file EAD for myself ( I probably would want to change jobs after 180 days) ? Or is it better to be on H1-B.
-- Should I file AP for both myself and my wife(she is on H4) ?
Also, when I decide to change jobs using AC21 rule, is it better to tranfer
H1-B to a new company or if I have EAD, how does that work ?
Any inputs will be greatly appreciated..!!
Thanks
If I were you, I would apply for EAD and AP for spouse and self immediately. You never know when you may need it. Say, your company announces a merger and your entire department is wiped out and you have to leave before coming Friday. It would be almost impossible to find another employer who will send the new H-1B application before Friday. In such instances EAD will help to keep you in status. EAD card for spouse will allow her to apply for SSN and thus Drivers license. AP for wife will help to travel out of country after you have used EAD. So in short, I would apply for all the docs for all members of the family. This could result in spending couple of hundred dollars but will help secure peace of mind.
Based on the June Bulletin, I will be filing my I485 in June.
Now, I have H1-B(with my current company till Feb'2010 that I just got approved a month back.(not stamped in passport yet)
-- Should I file EAD for myself ( I probably would want to change jobs after 180 days) ? Or is it better to be on H1-B.
-- Should I file AP for both myself and my wife(she is on H4) ?
Also, when I decide to change jobs using AC21 rule, is it better to tranfer
H1-B to a new company or if I have EAD, how does that work ?
Any inputs will be greatly appreciated..!!
Thanks
If I were you, I would apply for EAD and AP for spouse and self immediately. You never know when you may need it. Say, your company announces a merger and your entire department is wiped out and you have to leave before coming Friday. It would be almost impossible to find another employer who will send the new H-1B application before Friday. In such instances EAD will help to keep you in status. EAD card for spouse will allow her to apply for SSN and thus Drivers license. AP for wife will help to travel out of country after you have used EAD. So in short, I would apply for all the docs for all members of the family. This could result in spending couple of hundred dollars but will help secure peace of mind.
dresses %IMG_DESC_12%
buddyinsd
08-17 07:09 PM
...is getting approved. My case is with an IO since Aug 3 and going by the trend, I should have received an update by now (within 2 weeks of getting assigned to the IO). Not sure whats going on :( This is the worst ever wait in my life. Wonder when its going to end???
more...
makeup %IMG_DESC_9%
bajjuri77
03-31 10:51 PM
Does it needs subscription or just one time donation? I have donated one time. But it still not working for me too.
girlfriend %IMG_DESC_14%
checklaw
06-28 11:52 AM
Hi,
Can anybody pls help me with regard to my situation.As my kid was born in india Whether i need to apply employment authorisation/EAD (I 765 application) for my kid..We asked the attorney she told u can do what ever u want.Anybody in this situation?or anybody have applied EAD for kids under 14yrs ?
thanks
As per a Lawyers Checklist that I came across:
"I765: $180 (kids do not need it)
$70 for fingerprint (kids below 14 do not need it)"
Trust you may have got same answer from other sources you checked.
Can anybody pls help me with regard to my situation.As my kid was born in india Whether i need to apply employment authorisation/EAD (I 765 application) for my kid..We asked the attorney she told u can do what ever u want.Anybody in this situation?or anybody have applied EAD for kids under 14yrs ?
thanks
As per a Lawyers Checklist that I came across:
"I765: $180 (kids do not need it)
$70 for fingerprint (kids below 14 do not need it)"
Trust you may have got same answer from other sources you checked.
hairstyles %IMG_DESC_11%
knacath
09-23 06:57 PM
The total number of applications excluding EB2, EB3 are 7,653.
The total visa's per annum -> 140,000
Considering that there would be more applications during the year from non-retrogressed countries/categories ..it is evident now that there won't be more than 5K such applications. On pessimistic side even if we consider 10K such applications, The visas available for retrogressed EB2 and EB3 should be around 120K this year.
Total pending EB2 is 74,932. So EB2 should be Current for all countries this year.
EB3 should get around 40K visas this year.
Any one disagrees?
I thought each EB category could get upto 28.6% of 140000 = 40000 visas every fiscal year. So if EB1 uses up 5000 and EB2 takes the remaining 35000 and its annual allotment of 40000, EB3 does not get any spillover.
Thoughts?
The total visa's per annum -> 140,000
Considering that there would be more applications during the year from non-retrogressed countries/categories ..it is evident now that there won't be more than 5K such applications. On pessimistic side even if we consider 10K such applications, The visas available for retrogressed EB2 and EB3 should be around 120K this year.
Total pending EB2 is 74,932. So EB2 should be Current for all countries this year.
EB3 should get around 40K visas this year.
Any one disagrees?
I thought each EB category could get upto 28.6% of 140000 = 40000 visas every fiscal year. So if EB1 uses up 5000 and EB2 takes the remaining 35000 and its annual allotment of 40000, EB3 does not get any spillover.
Thoughts?
xyz2009
08-18 02:16 PM
Hi All
I got greened today. Same here for me and my wife. I voted on the poll for me. Let me know if you want me to add one more for my wife too.
Here are my details for your reference:
1. EB2 India
2. PD: Dec 21 2005
3. NSC
4. I-485 Receipt Date: July 2 2007
5. I-485 Notice Date: July 30 2007
6. What I did: SR on 2/8 (File pending and awaiting assigning to officer) wife SR 2/8 (Actively working and need additional review)...wife is a dependent
7. Went for infopass on 2/8 afternoon (First day when I was current)...guy told me your cases are pre-adjudicated and files are with officer and same for me. Was happy
8. Called second level IOs from 3/8 till 3/14 everyday.
9. Some were knowledgeable and some were not but more or less good people I met
10. One good person on 3/10 told me Mr Sharma your file is in transit...may be in some crate or some bin and might be on the move to an officer...I said Infopass guy told me they are with officers then he said clearly NO...your status is in transit and your files are NOT assigned to officer and your paralegals July 23 referral is still open and I cannot expedite it. So write to NSC follow up and mention my name and tell to expedite your case and see if they oblige you and help you. Thats your only hope. I cannot override your outstanding July 23 2010 referral.
11. I did that and surprisingly nobody replied to that and few days earlier I had written to same email id and I got standard response for me and my wife
12. I wrote to Ombudsman last Wed and yesterday after a follow somebody acknowledged and said we will take action
13. I contacted senator office in mid July 2010 and after full one month I was in their system and congressional staffer was assigned to me and he called me and said on Monday evening I am writing to NSC Liasion and told me to wait for 2 weeks
14. To my surprise he forwarded me NSC update which said files are with adjudicating officer and it did say that they are processing 4000 cases in a month.
15. Congressional aide called me and said per his experience this is a + email and you can be approved anytime now.
16. At 6.02 am there were 2 SMS and I checked online status changed to decision and then emails which said welcome new permanent residents
17. I have been in US for 10 yrs now. Did full time MBA (F1) and then switched 2 jobs, it was a second GC as I left a March 2005 labor and started new Perm labor with the second company on H1B
18. Was able to file through July 2007 VB fiasco
19. Left the company after 250 days and switch on H1B transfer and ported my GC
20. My current employer attorney did file for AC21
21. Was waiting for this current window of opportunity
Honestly I did everything I could do and did NOT leave any table unturned. I dont know what worked or not but yes I tried each and everything.
IV is a fantastic platform indeed. I respect each and every member and I will help in every possible way indeed.
Now few questions and clarifications:
1. My wife is in India returning on sat evening. She was on H4.
2. When she left I gave her advance paroles original
3. I also gave her print out of I-485 receipt
4. I told her to print out USCIS GC approval email that came today
Now questions:
1. She should go to which queue at POE, Visa or the ones for citizens/permanent residents?
2. What she should tell the IO? When she left she was on H4 and on Aug 17th my 485 was approved and here is the proof (approval email print out) and ask the IO to respond?
3. What will happen then? She will be taken somewhere and they will put D-155 stamp on her passport OR she would be allowed to enter on her Advance Parole or She will be admitted on H4 with I-94?
Anybody has the same experience, kindly explain me so that I can inform my wife immediately.
If anybody wants any help with any step please send me private message please. Would be glad to help.
Best Regards,
I got greened today. Same here for me and my wife. I voted on the poll for me. Let me know if you want me to add one more for my wife too.
Here are my details for your reference:
1. EB2 India
2. PD: Dec 21 2005
3. NSC
4. I-485 Receipt Date: July 2 2007
5. I-485 Notice Date: July 30 2007
6. What I did: SR on 2/8 (File pending and awaiting assigning to officer) wife SR 2/8 (Actively working and need additional review)...wife is a dependent
7. Went for infopass on 2/8 afternoon (First day when I was current)...guy told me your cases are pre-adjudicated and files are with officer and same for me. Was happy
8. Called second level IOs from 3/8 till 3/14 everyday.
9. Some were knowledgeable and some were not but more or less good people I met
10. One good person on 3/10 told me Mr Sharma your file is in transit...may be in some crate or some bin and might be on the move to an officer...I said Infopass guy told me they are with officers then he said clearly NO...your status is in transit and your files are NOT assigned to officer and your paralegals July 23 referral is still open and I cannot expedite it. So write to NSC follow up and mention my name and tell to expedite your case and see if they oblige you and help you. Thats your only hope. I cannot override your outstanding July 23 2010 referral.
11. I did that and surprisingly nobody replied to that and few days earlier I had written to same email id and I got standard response for me and my wife
12. I wrote to Ombudsman last Wed and yesterday after a follow somebody acknowledged and said we will take action
13. I contacted senator office in mid July 2010 and after full one month I was in their system and congressional staffer was assigned to me and he called me and said on Monday evening I am writing to NSC Liasion and told me to wait for 2 weeks
14. To my surprise he forwarded me NSC update which said files are with adjudicating officer and it did say that they are processing 4000 cases in a month.
15. Congressional aide called me and said per his experience this is a + email and you can be approved anytime now.
16. At 6.02 am there were 2 SMS and I checked online status changed to decision and then emails which said welcome new permanent residents
17. I have been in US for 10 yrs now. Did full time MBA (F1) and then switched 2 jobs, it was a second GC as I left a March 2005 labor and started new Perm labor with the second company on H1B
18. Was able to file through July 2007 VB fiasco
19. Left the company after 250 days and switch on H1B transfer and ported my GC
20. My current employer attorney did file for AC21
21. Was waiting for this current window of opportunity
Honestly I did everything I could do and did NOT leave any table unturned. I dont know what worked or not but yes I tried each and everything.
IV is a fantastic platform indeed. I respect each and every member and I will help in every possible way indeed.
Now few questions and clarifications:
1. My wife is in India returning on sat evening. She was on H4.
2. When she left I gave her advance paroles original
3. I also gave her print out of I-485 receipt
4. I told her to print out USCIS GC approval email that came today
Now questions:
1. She should go to which queue at POE, Visa or the ones for citizens/permanent residents?
2. What she should tell the IO? When she left she was on H4 and on Aug 17th my 485 was approved and here is the proof (approval email print out) and ask the IO to respond?
3. What will happen then? She will be taken somewhere and they will put D-155 stamp on her passport OR she would be allowed to enter on her Advance Parole or She will be admitted on H4 with I-94?
Anybody has the same experience, kindly explain me so that I can inform my wife immediately.
If anybody wants any help with any step please send me private message please. Would be glad to help.
Best Regards,
akela_topchi
08-07 11:54 AM
I thought you already left for the law firm...
I am impressed by your qualifications, what is your PD?
I am impressed by your qualifications, what is your PD?