micofrost
07-06 01:38 PM
For sure DoS knew that something is wrong at USCIS end. Looks like they dint get along well on this one. So instead of saying that all the visa numbers has been used up, they said " all the entire 2007 numbers has been made available". Which means they know very well USCIS are still processing the cases, even after July 2nd.
Looks like, DOS trying to clean their hands and put the blame on USCIS.
This is what happened. Again my thoughts based on last fews days before the july 2nd.
USCIS was angered by DOS making it current for all categories. Every one knows there will be a minimum 100K apps flooding their gates. Imagine the revenue loss for them just bcoz of making it current b4 30th july. They expected DOS to make it current from Aug 1st instead of July 1st. Had the immigration bill passed, as promised by the GOVT., they would have stand to gain $4B in grants to secure the border. But the bill crashed on 27th of june. So what do they do to stop this loss of revenue from our application. They have to use of the entire fiscal 2007 quota in three days so that legally they can't accept more applications. Now that is legally correct. But they way they claimed all the visas within 4 days wasn't played by the rules and where the AILF stands chance to file a lawsuit against them.
Someone in the USCIS was hell bent upon forcing the DOS to make it unavailable for July. WHY ?
Looks like, DOS trying to clean their hands and put the blame on USCIS.
This is what happened. Again my thoughts based on last fews days before the july 2nd.
USCIS was angered by DOS making it current for all categories. Every one knows there will be a minimum 100K apps flooding their gates. Imagine the revenue loss for them just bcoz of making it current b4 30th july. They expected DOS to make it current from Aug 1st instead of July 1st. Had the immigration bill passed, as promised by the GOVT., they would have stand to gain $4B in grants to secure the border. But the bill crashed on 27th of june. So what do they do to stop this loss of revenue from our application. They have to use of the entire fiscal 2007 quota in three days so that legally they can't accept more applications. Now that is legally correct. But they way they claimed all the visas within 4 days wasn't played by the rules and where the AILF stands chance to file a lawsuit against them.
Someone in the USCIS was hell bent upon forcing the DOS to make it unavailable for July. WHY ?
wallpaper Tags: cake, cake boss, tlc,
andy007
07-18 12:12 AM
Labor PD: April 29, 2003 (EB3)
140 Approved Date:
140 approved from: NSC
Mailed to NSC: June 1st
Received at NSC: June 4th
Receipt Date : June 5, 2007 This is what everybody gets now ........
Approved I485: Notice date : June 18, 2007
FP Appointment: July 11, 2007
I-485 : PENDING
140 Approved Date:
140 approved from: NSC
Mailed to NSC: June 1st
Received at NSC: June 4th
Receipt Date : June 5, 2007 This is what everybody gets now ........
Approved I485: Notice date : June 18, 2007
FP Appointment: July 11, 2007
I-485 : PENDING
chisinau
07-22 11:44 PM
OK!
Where are you schedule A? Come on, join this forum, share your opinion and propositions!
Do all agree that "bridge bill" is the only real helpful measure for us? Or you can show us some other ways?
I mean let's set at least one goal!
After that we can establish what we have, and how we can make it real.
Anyway, it might be quite difficult to organise such a work group, because the majourity of schedule A are outside the US, and on CP... But we all have our emploiers and attorneis who could help us to lobby our interests in the US.
What do you think about it?
Where are you schedule A? Come on, join this forum, share your opinion and propositions!
Do all agree that "bridge bill" is the only real helpful measure for us? Or you can show us some other ways?
I mean let's set at least one goal!
After that we can establish what we have, and how we can make it real.
Anyway, it might be quite difficult to organise such a work group, because the majourity of schedule A are outside the US, and on CP... But we all have our emploiers and attorneis who could help us to lobby our interests in the US.
What do you think about it?
2011 black wedding cake
Green.Tech
06-16 08:22 PM
Another paypal contribution on top of the previous amts - just in response to those friendly bumps..
ID - 8U366744YC025615S
Thanks ramaonline!
ID - 8U366744YC025615S
Thanks ramaonline!
more...
snhn
06-10 11:32 AM
Drunk With ImmigrationVoice. :D
good to see that we still can laugh in such uncertain times as far as immigration is concerned. made me laugh... surprise seeing this funny comment coming from Pappu.... good one...
good to see that we still can laugh in such uncertain times as far as immigration is concerned. made me laugh... surprise seeing this funny comment coming from Pappu.... good one...
WAIT_FOR_EVER_GC
09-05 11:22 PM
I missed the boat in 2007. I think the bigger point here is that people vent their frustration of their GC journey only in a blog hiding their identity. When it comes to real work of meeting people, most hide under their bed..
If the July 2007 fiasco hadn't happened, we wouldn't have had this mess. Most waiting on GC would have quit and gone home making the line shorter :rolleyes:
(The last line is sarcastic)
I think even if the July fiasco wouldn't have happened we would have been in the same situation. Who would want to leave this country and go back. Many people who have applied in EB3 in 2004 -2006 know that they are stuck for another 6 - 15 years but they are still willing to wait.
If the July 2007 fiasco hadn't happened, we wouldn't have had this mess. Most waiting on GC would have quit and gone home making the line shorter :rolleyes:
(The last line is sarcastic)
I think even if the July fiasco wouldn't have happened we would have been in the same situation. Who would want to leave this country and go back. Many people who have applied in EB3 in 2004 -2006 know that they are stuck for another 6 - 15 years but they are still willing to wait.
more...
McLuvin
03-09 12:22 PM
KLPD ho gaya bhailog....
Man one more depressing start for EB3-I aspirants... :mad:
Man one more depressing start for EB3-I aspirants... :mad:
2010 Cake Boss Wedding Cakes
andy garcia
10-01 10:23 AM
Some unused EB #s were recaptured for families in following year. For example, in 1994 there were 29,430 (column 2) unused EB #s. However, 27,721 (= 253,721 (column 3) - 226,000 (family quota)) of these #s were recaptured for families. Thus, only 29,430 - 27,721 = 1,709 (column 4) were un-recaptured.
Also, 50,000 unused EB #s from 01-04 were recaptured for Schedule A.
Finally, unused EB #s in 99 and 00 were recaptured, hopefully for EB.
Thus, unused EB #s are more important then un-recaptured EB #s (mentioned above) since some of them have not been recaptured for EB.
The unused EB #s is 506,384 (total column 2) - 98,941 (99 recaptured for EB) - 31,098 (00 recaptured for EB) = 376, 345
Annual Report to Congress June 2007 (http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/CISOMB_Annual_Report_2007.pdf)
Macaca;
Here is where the confusion lies with respect to unused, wasted, etc.
The Immigration Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-649) restructured the immigrant categories of admission and made other modifications to the Immigration and Nationality Act.
The 1990 Act divided the preference classes into two general categories: family-sponsored(FS) and
employment-based(EB). Limits on the number of visas issued in these two categories are determined annually.
FS limits�The worldwide level for FS preferences is calculated as:
480,000 minus the number of aliens who were issued visas or adjusted to legal permanent residence in the previous fiscal year as
immediate relatives of U.S.citizens
children born subsequent to the issuance of a visa to an accompanying parent
children born abroad to lawful permanent residents on temporary trips abroad
plus unused EB preferences in the previous fiscal year.
The 1990 Act specifies that the family-sponsored limit may not go below a minimum of 226,000 in any year.
EB limits�The 1990 Act specifies that the worldwide limit on EB preference immigrants is equal to 140,000 plus unused FS-preference visas in the previous year.
Also, 50,000 unused EB #s from 01-04 were recaptured for Schedule A.
Finally, unused EB #s in 99 and 00 were recaptured, hopefully for EB.
Thus, unused EB #s are more important then un-recaptured EB #s (mentioned above) since some of them have not been recaptured for EB.
The unused EB #s is 506,384 (total column 2) - 98,941 (99 recaptured for EB) - 31,098 (00 recaptured for EB) = 376, 345
Annual Report to Congress June 2007 (http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/CISOMB_Annual_Report_2007.pdf)
Macaca;
Here is where the confusion lies with respect to unused, wasted, etc.
The Immigration Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-649) restructured the immigrant categories of admission and made other modifications to the Immigration and Nationality Act.
The 1990 Act divided the preference classes into two general categories: family-sponsored(FS) and
employment-based(EB). Limits on the number of visas issued in these two categories are determined annually.
FS limits�The worldwide level for FS preferences is calculated as:
480,000 minus the number of aliens who were issued visas or adjusted to legal permanent residence in the previous fiscal year as
immediate relatives of U.S.citizens
children born subsequent to the issuance of a visa to an accompanying parent
children born abroad to lawful permanent residents on temporary trips abroad
plus unused EB preferences in the previous fiscal year.
The 1990 Act specifies that the family-sponsored limit may not go below a minimum of 226,000 in any year.
EB limits�The 1990 Act specifies that the worldwide limit on EB preference immigrants is equal to 140,000 plus unused FS-preference visas in the previous year.
more...
caydee
12-27 12:26 PM
CA chapter - Please include me in your resource pool....
I am in Cupertino
I am in Cupertino
hair cake boss wedding cakes
rockrocky
06-11 11:32 AM
Just remember.. if we are not united, we ain't getting nothing. Lets work on Recapture of wasted numbers. Thats the only inflow we can rely on. We don't have to wait for their charity every month in the name of left over numbers or spill over numbers. We want our legal GCs. We worked hard to earn it. Lets stay united and fight against the system.
more...
satishku_2000
07-05 03:15 PM
I just spoke with an Immigration Representative of my Senator. She knows me as I met her last year with my employer for my other issue.
She just informed me that we are (Not only we but whole Congress) shocked with un-precedent action of DOS/USCIS for July VB. Senator's Washington DC office is working on this issue including immediate legislative relief to Employment Based immigration. She is well aware of whole drama of July VB. I am going to call Washington DC Office as well.
I encourage every one call to their Senator and HR and speak with Immigration Representative. I think first time media and lawmakers have acknowledged the problem of Employment Based Immigration.
Call make much impact than the email/fax
Can you tell me who are your senators?
She just informed me that we are (Not only we but whole Congress) shocked with un-precedent action of DOS/USCIS for July VB. Senator's Washington DC office is working on this issue including immediate legislative relief to Employment Based immigration. She is well aware of whole drama of July VB. I am going to call Washington DC Office as well.
I encourage every one call to their Senator and HR and speak with Immigration Representative. I think first time media and lawmakers have acknowledged the problem of Employment Based Immigration.
Call make much impact than the email/fax
Can you tell me who are your senators?
hot Cake Boss Wedding Cakes
va_dude
03-04 10:06 AM
I don't think this is a pattern, its probably specific just to the lender you were working with.
Frankly speaking the lender has the right to deny you the loan for whatever reason they feel is risky. So no point arguing with them.
Try another lender and hope it works.
-va_dude
Frankly speaking the lender has the right to deny you the loan for whatever reason they feel is risky. So no point arguing with them.
Try another lender and hope it works.
-va_dude
more...
house wallpaper cake boss wedding
pd052009
08-13 10:32 AM
I think more than 90% of companies in service industries have more than 50% emps in H1/L1. The fees may be indirectly passed to the employees in terms of cut in salary or cut in profit sharing.
Anyone knows whether there is any fee increase for premium processing?
Anyone knows whether there is any fee increase for premium processing?
tattoo Cake Boss Wedding Cakes are
bidhanc
03-11 10:51 AM
I guess it's not a VERY GOOD IDEA THEN.
In all the docs that I went thru I could not see a difference between
"I-140 approved/I-485 pending and porting" and "I-140/I-485 pending and porting" (most docs refer to the latter).
I am guessing when it comes to "porting", both are the same in the eyes of USCIS??
(What I mean to ask is there any leniency with an approved I-140 and then trying to port?)
Anyone see otherwise?
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/AC21Intrm122705.pdf
as per this document, you can port to yourself. (Question #8)
But below are the reasons why I am backing off of opening an LLC on spouse name and porting to that.
http://murthyforum.atinfopop.com/4/OpenTopic?a=tpc&s=1024039761&f=4654000912&m=8231099851
also google 'UntanglingSkein_BIB_15jan07.pdf"
http://www.morganlewis.com/pubs/UntanglingSkein_BIB_15jan07.pdf
"This suggests, fairly clearly, that any communication to the USCIS per the Cronin Memo that the adjustment applicant intends to become self-employed is likely to trigger an RFE to inquire into the legitimacy of this arrangement. Legitimacy in this context is likely to be gauged by the concrete steps the beneficiary has taken in furtherance of the self-employment arrangement, understanding that only full-time and permanent employment will suffice for immigration purposes. Such steps would include the completion of legal and corporate formalities, the securing of financing, the purchase or lease of business premises and equipment,the development of a detailed business plan, the hiring of employees, and any other measures typically taken in the establishment of a business. Vague aspirational statements, however ambitious, about future plans to develop a business are unlikely, in the absence of tangible proof, to be accepted as probative of the requisite legitimacy of the self-employer and job offer."
Also, one relevant footnote in the document -
"At the AILA National Conference in 2003, a USCIS officer indicated that an attempt to invoke �106(c) in a selfemployment context is likely to raise �a big red flag� for an adjudicator, and that self-employment may be viewed as �an easy alternative� for aliens who are unable to find employment to sustain their adjustment-of-status applications. Schorr & Yale-Loehr, supra note 2, at 499. It should also be noted that the Memos view the possibility of an adjustment applicant becoming a public charge (and thus being inadmissible under INA �212(a)(4)) as being �a relevant inquiry� and that an RFE requesting information about a self-employment arrangement is likely to probe whether or not the applicant has sufficient financial resources to avoid becoming such a public charge."
In all the docs that I went thru I could not see a difference between
"I-140 approved/I-485 pending and porting" and "I-140/I-485 pending and porting" (most docs refer to the latter).
I am guessing when it comes to "porting", both are the same in the eyes of USCIS??
(What I mean to ask is there any leniency with an approved I-140 and then trying to port?)
Anyone see otherwise?
http://www.uscis.gov/files/pressrelease/AC21Intrm122705.pdf
as per this document, you can port to yourself. (Question #8)
But below are the reasons why I am backing off of opening an LLC on spouse name and porting to that.
http://murthyforum.atinfopop.com/4/OpenTopic?a=tpc&s=1024039761&f=4654000912&m=8231099851
also google 'UntanglingSkein_BIB_15jan07.pdf"
http://www.morganlewis.com/pubs/UntanglingSkein_BIB_15jan07.pdf
"This suggests, fairly clearly, that any communication to the USCIS per the Cronin Memo that the adjustment applicant intends to become self-employed is likely to trigger an RFE to inquire into the legitimacy of this arrangement. Legitimacy in this context is likely to be gauged by the concrete steps the beneficiary has taken in furtherance of the self-employment arrangement, understanding that only full-time and permanent employment will suffice for immigration purposes. Such steps would include the completion of legal and corporate formalities, the securing of financing, the purchase or lease of business premises and equipment,the development of a detailed business plan, the hiring of employees, and any other measures typically taken in the establishment of a business. Vague aspirational statements, however ambitious, about future plans to develop a business are unlikely, in the absence of tangible proof, to be accepted as probative of the requisite legitimacy of the self-employer and job offer."
Also, one relevant footnote in the document -
"At the AILA National Conference in 2003, a USCIS officer indicated that an attempt to invoke �106(c) in a selfemployment context is likely to raise �a big red flag� for an adjudicator, and that self-employment may be viewed as �an easy alternative� for aliens who are unable to find employment to sustain their adjustment-of-status applications. Schorr & Yale-Loehr, supra note 2, at 499. It should also be noted that the Memos view the possibility of an adjustment applicant becoming a public charge (and thus being inadmissible under INA �212(a)(4)) as being �a relevant inquiry� and that an RFE requesting information about a self-employment arrangement is likely to probe whether or not the applicant has sufficient financial resources to avoid becoming such a public charge."
more...
pictures Cake Gallery | Wedding Cakes
immi2006
05-04 10:26 AM
He would have brought DOL work culture to your work place, who knows you might have incurred loss :-)
Maybe it would be eating and sleeping... if they get bored with that they might approve 1 or 2 cases.
Maybe it would be eating and sleeping... if they get bored with that they might approve 1 or 2 cases.
dresses for TLC#39;s Cake Boss.
ind_game
05-15 09:53 AM
Hi ind_game,
For me, 1. I-140 approval in September, 2007 (actually 09/04/2009 as I have the hard copy) has typo. I think your 09/04/2009 should be 2007.
Please correct.
My apologies........Can I correct the thread message now........it looks I cannot.......anyway here is the updated....thanks ak_2006
Here is the scoop.
from US Congresswoman's office, an immigration specialist spoke to their liaison at the Nebraska Service Center.
Liaison confirmed the following:
1. I-140 approval in September, 2007 (actually 09/04/2007 as I have the hard copy)
2. I-140 revocation in Feb, 2009 ( he has not provided the day of the month, but from LUD I have it strongly pointing to 02/03/2009)
I have not told the Congresswoman's office about the I-140 revocation. Just mentioned that it might have happened as I have left the company.
3. Liaison did confirm that even after the I-140 being withdrawn I am eligible for adjustment thru AC21.
4. Liaison did agree that if the I-140 was revoked within the stipulated time given in AC21, Nebraska�s decision to deny the I-485 may have been in error. (which in my case is true)
Immigration specialist at the Congresswoman's office is going to contact the Director of NSC to review this matter with a supervisor
Unanswered questions:
1. If the Liaison can see that my I-140 is approved on 09/04/2007, why is that the adjudicating officer is responding with a denial on 09/04/2007 and subsequent denial of I-485?
2. Are they both not looking at my information with same interface?
Conclusion:
Atleast in my case it looks deliberate and intentional.
For me, 1. I-140 approval in September, 2007 (actually 09/04/2009 as I have the hard copy) has typo. I think your 09/04/2009 should be 2007.
Please correct.
My apologies........Can I correct the thread message now........it looks I cannot.......anyway here is the updated....thanks ak_2006
Here is the scoop.
from US Congresswoman's office, an immigration specialist spoke to their liaison at the Nebraska Service Center.
Liaison confirmed the following:
1. I-140 approval in September, 2007 (actually 09/04/2007 as I have the hard copy)
2. I-140 revocation in Feb, 2009 ( he has not provided the day of the month, but from LUD I have it strongly pointing to 02/03/2009)
I have not told the Congresswoman's office about the I-140 revocation. Just mentioned that it might have happened as I have left the company.
3. Liaison did confirm that even after the I-140 being withdrawn I am eligible for adjustment thru AC21.
4. Liaison did agree that if the I-140 was revoked within the stipulated time given in AC21, Nebraska�s decision to deny the I-485 may have been in error. (which in my case is true)
Immigration specialist at the Congresswoman's office is going to contact the Director of NSC to review this matter with a supervisor
Unanswered questions:
1. If the Liaison can see that my I-140 is approved on 09/04/2007, why is that the adjudicating officer is responding with a denial on 09/04/2007 and subsequent denial of I-485?
2. Are they both not looking at my information with same interface?
Conclusion:
Atleast in my case it looks deliberate and intentional.
more...
makeup Cake Boss Quilted Wedding
chandsri81
04-25 08:52 AM
Hi
I just applied for a mortgage from BOA. The loan officer did not recognize what AOS was and asked me for an H1B - which has expired.
I explained about AOS and EAD and told her I could give the I-485 receipt, and she took in my application.
But I'm worried that my loan will be denied after underwriting - my closing is on 5/26 and I probably will not hear from the bank until second week of may.
Does anyone know of Banks in MA that give loans to EAD?
Chandana
I just applied for a mortgage from BOA. The loan officer did not recognize what AOS was and asked me for an H1B - which has expired.
I explained about AOS and EAD and told her I could give the I-485 receipt, and she took in my application.
But I'm worried that my loan will be denied after underwriting - my closing is on 5/26 and I probably will not hear from the bank until second week of may.
Does anyone know of Banks in MA that give loans to EAD?
Chandana
girlfriend CAKE BOSS on DIY wedding cakes
gc28262
08-12 11:06 AM
Why is the senator backtracking from "chop shop" comment ? Here is why
Visa row: US keen not to hurt ties with India before Obama visit - US - World - The Times of India (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/Visa-row-US-keen-not-to-hurt-ties-with-India-before-Obama-visit/articleshow/6298482.cms)
Visa row: US keen not to hurt ties with India before Obama visit - US - World - The Times of India (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/Visa-row-US-keen-not-to-hurt-ties-with-India-before-Obama-visit/articleshow/6298482.cms)
hairstyles Cake Boss Quilted Wedding
rbharol
05-25 11:49 PM
It seems for back log accumulations centers it is "random in random out" policy...
They dont care. I think they have been told to delay it so much that we get frustrated and leave the country.
They dont care. I think they have been told to delay it so much that we get frustrated and leave the country.
chanduv23
09-10 10:01 AM
They most of the approvals are of US Master degree and above as it is straight fwd EB2 no need to verify skill set etc..
Not quite true - this is done at 140 not 485
Not quite true - this is done at 140 not 485
Libra
09-10 09:35 PM
mamthavijai, theman, lccleared thanks for your contributions. Hope you all can make it to rally.
No comments:
Post a Comment