MDix
01-25 10:45 AM
Please post Email/Letter content here, I can ask all my friend to send it to their respective Senator....
No more Discussion only ACTION.
Thnaks,
MDix
No more Discussion only ACTION.
Thnaks,
MDix
wallpaper Ford Explorer Sport Trac
anilsal
12-11 03:00 PM
In my opinion, USCIS created this rule to disallow new applications such that they can deal with the countless backlogged apps for labor.
If the change of rule does not need congress action, then why not explore this option of allowing filing I485 during retrogression?
If the change of rule does not need congress action, then why not explore this option of allowing filing I485 during retrogression?
ItIsNotFunny
10-16 09:24 AM
Guys,
Someone left a red dot on post with message: " tells of your lack of ideas".
I never said that this is the only option left and we have to do this. This was one of the proposal / suggestion. We welcomed other suggestions too! What I wanted and I still want is to do something, I wanted to have a brain storming so that we can come up with some better positive idea. This is not new. We had similar hurdles when tried to request people to promote HR 5882 and other events.
Above note is a sign of complete loser. This type of people don't have guts to come up in front and express their views because they really don't have guts to do anything. I am not ashamed that I proposed flower campaign where there are other possibly better options available.
I still strongly believe that doing something is always better than cursing something who is trying to do something or doing nothing.
Seriously, its not illegal lobbies that we are more threatened by. Its our own people.
Someone left a red dot on post with message: " tells of your lack of ideas".
I never said that this is the only option left and we have to do this. This was one of the proposal / suggestion. We welcomed other suggestions too! What I wanted and I still want is to do something, I wanted to have a brain storming so that we can come up with some better positive idea. This is not new. We had similar hurdles when tried to request people to promote HR 5882 and other events.
Above note is a sign of complete loser. This type of people don't have guts to come up in front and express their views because they really don't have guts to do anything. I am not ashamed that I proposed flower campaign where there are other possibly better options available.
I still strongly believe that doing something is always better than cursing something who is trying to do something or doing nothing.
Seriously, its not illegal lobbies that we are more threatened by. Its our own people.
2011 2009 Ford Explorer Sport Trac
gc03
07-24 03:36 PM
Mr. Gonz�lez,
I have a question on retrogression in Employment Based (EB) Visas. I am in the USA LEGALLY for the past 7 + years and am still waiting for my Green Card (Permanent Residency) in the employment based category. How long do I have to wait? With current retrogression of the dates, I cannot apply for adjustment of status for another 5 or more year. My green card process is going on and on for the past 4 + years. The situation is very disappointing one and all. My spouse is having Research Doctorate and waiting for my Permanent Residency to contribute to the economy and society.
My Question:
Is it possible to you allowing filing of I-485/EAD even if the visa number is not available? The Adjust Status of the case would obviously happen only after visa number becomes available.
Regards,
I have a question on retrogression in Employment Based (EB) Visas. I am in the USA LEGALLY for the past 7 + years and am still waiting for my Green Card (Permanent Residency) in the employment based category. How long do I have to wait? With current retrogression of the dates, I cannot apply for adjustment of status for another 5 or more year. My green card process is going on and on for the past 4 + years. The situation is very disappointing one and all. My spouse is having Research Doctorate and waiting for my Permanent Residency to contribute to the economy and society.
My Question:
Is it possible to you allowing filing of I-485/EAD even if the visa number is not available? The Adjust Status of the case would obviously happen only after visa number becomes available.
Regards,
more...
pointlesswait
02-21 11:39 AM
if u can keep thd same PD whenu change from eB3 to eB2..you should do it immediately!
Does anyone want to make a guess of when EB3 India 2002 will become current ? I am thinking of changing the case to EB2.. Should I change my case or should I wait for EB3 to be current ?
Does anyone want to make a guess of when EB3 India 2002 will become current ? I am thinking of changing the case to EB2.. Should I change my case or should I wait for EB3 to be current ?
vijayassr
08-05 08:53 PM
Hi, Looks like you have a propabilities now.
1) If your H1 gets approved first before OCT'01st and your L1 does not approve, you should change to company B (who applied H1), if B applied your H1 with CHANGE OF STATUS (you will see new I-94 issued along with approval).
Good thing u can stay in country and work for B.
2) IF your H1 & L1 gets approved one after other in sequence, means first H1 then L1 then I think you are safe to work with company A without leaving country, Murthy.com says its the sequence that matters.
Check with Murthy.com attornies as well, but other Attorneys does not agree with them.It will be only problem when you apply GC, and not in mean while.
3)IF its L1 then H1,and if you want to work with company A, then you need to go out of country and get L1 stamped. Your H1 will remain avilable unless company B cancells it.
4) If your L1 gets approved and H1 gets problem(rejected I dont want this but if happens) then any how u can work for company A.
Hope the above things help.
Thanks
Vijay
1) If your H1 gets approved first before OCT'01st and your L1 does not approve, you should change to company B (who applied H1), if B applied your H1 with CHANGE OF STATUS (you will see new I-94 issued along with approval).
Good thing u can stay in country and work for B.
2) IF your H1 & L1 gets approved one after other in sequence, means first H1 then L1 then I think you are safe to work with company A without leaving country, Murthy.com says its the sequence that matters.
Check with Murthy.com attornies as well, but other Attorneys does not agree with them.It will be only problem when you apply GC, and not in mean while.
3)IF its L1 then H1,and if you want to work with company A, then you need to go out of country and get L1 stamped. Your H1 will remain avilable unless company B cancells it.
4) If your L1 gets approved and H1 gets problem(rejected I dont want this but if happens) then any how u can work for company A.
Hope the above things help.
Thanks
Vijay
more...
Macaca
09-26 12:06 PM
Last week 1,000 protestors-mostly legal immigrants-drew attention to the situation of highly skilled foreigners who want to work for companies in the U.S. by marching on Capitol Hill.
The demonstrators were protesting long delays in securing green cards for highly-skilled workers already in the U.S. The lags make it difficult for businesses in fields such as engineering and software development to secure and keep foreign skilled labor in the country, they say. According to immigration and workforce experts, if the nation does not accept more foreign workers with skills in math, engineering and computer science, we risk losing ground in the global economy, because the computer scientists who can't find work in the U.S. will go to work for economic rivals.
The demonstrators were protesting long delays in securing green cards for highly-skilled workers already in the U.S. The lags make it difficult for businesses in fields such as engineering and software development to secure and keep foreign skilled labor in the country, they say. According to immigration and workforce experts, if the nation does not accept more foreign workers with skills in math, engineering and computer science, we risk losing ground in the global economy, because the computer scientists who can't find work in the U.S. will go to work for economic rivals.
2010 Ford Explorer Sport Trac
pappu
12-13 12:50 PM
All , this subject has been raised very often and every time new members join in they start a thread and start questioning it.
- IV has indepth explored and studied this option and have found that this change is not possible administratively.
- we have not just met a lawyer. we have met few lawyers. we also have communicated with USCIS in the past.
- In the past some administrative changes have been done by USCIS, but this change cannot be done by them. All, we already had this idea long long ago and we also thought that why dont we do it if it so simple and then we dont have to go through all the legislative hurdles. But NO it cannot be done by USCIS.
- Faxing USCIS will not work. USCIS does not take policy decisions. We need to approach policy makers to get it done and that is what we are doing. By coming up with ideas, endlessly discussing despite explaination by IV and not working with IV action items we will all go in divergent directions and lose focus on the main action items we want each every member should focus. If you really feel for some idea and want to help, instead of asking IV to give explanation to every question on the forum, contact any of the active IV core members on the forum and bounce ideas. We need people with ideas and also same people willing to work on them too.
- If it was possible to get it done administratively, then in the current Skil bill push we would have/ and lawmakers would also have just asked USCIS to implement it.
Hope this explains this topic. Thanks
- IV has indepth explored and studied this option and have found that this change is not possible administratively.
- we have not just met a lawyer. we have met few lawyers. we also have communicated with USCIS in the past.
- In the past some administrative changes have been done by USCIS, but this change cannot be done by them. All, we already had this idea long long ago and we also thought that why dont we do it if it so simple and then we dont have to go through all the legislative hurdles. But NO it cannot be done by USCIS.
- Faxing USCIS will not work. USCIS does not take policy decisions. We need to approach policy makers to get it done and that is what we are doing. By coming up with ideas, endlessly discussing despite explaination by IV and not working with IV action items we will all go in divergent directions and lose focus on the main action items we want each every member should focus. If you really feel for some idea and want to help, instead of asking IV to give explanation to every question on the forum, contact any of the active IV core members on the forum and bounce ideas. We need people with ideas and also same people willing to work on them too.
- If it was possible to get it done administratively, then in the current Skil bill push we would have/ and lawmakers would also have just asked USCIS to implement it.
Hope this explains this topic. Thanks
more...
drirshad
07-02 06:32 AM
So far so good, hope we are on the same note rest of the week.
hair Ford Explorer Sport Trac
willgetgc2005
04-20 03:37 PM
Hello,
I can call right now. Please send me a PM
__________________________________________________
QUOTE=Administrator2]------------------------------------------------
URGENT
------------------------------------------------
We need 4-5 volunteers to make phone calls to IV members in CA. The purpose of the call is to inform and invite IV members in CA about this event so that we all could be well represented at this event. Please post a message or send a private message if you would like to voluneer for this effort. We will provide you with all the information required to make the phone calls to IV members. This task involves volunteering 30-45 minutes of your time. Please help this cause to help us all.
Thanks,[/QUOTE]
I can call right now. Please send me a PM
__________________________________________________
QUOTE=Administrator2]------------------------------------------------
URGENT
------------------------------------------------
We need 4-5 volunteers to make phone calls to IV members in CA. The purpose of the call is to inform and invite IV members in CA about this event so that we all could be well represented at this event. Please post a message or send a private message if you would like to voluneer for this effort. We will provide you with all the information required to make the phone calls to IV members. This task involves volunteering 30-45 minutes of your time. Please help this cause to help us all.
Thanks,[/QUOTE]
more...
dentist1
04-09 06:47 PM
Thanks Papu !!!! thats great....
His name is Pappu and not Papu also what is so great about this bulletin buddy.It sucks bigtime.
His name is Pappu and not Papu also what is so great about this bulletin buddy.It sucks bigtime.
hot Ford Explorer Sport Trac 2011.
hara_patta_for_rico
07-09 07:05 PM
I came across this law about the departmental control of numerical limitations, and I'd appreciate it if you all could post your interpretations of the same.
DOS Reg 22 CFR �42.51:
(a) Centralized control. Centralized control of the numerical limitations on immigration specified in INA 201, 202, and 203 is established in the Department. The Department shall limit the number of immigrant visas that may be issued and the number of adjustments of status that may be granted to aliens subject to these numerical limitations to a number:
(1) Not to exceed 27 percent of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) in any of the first three quarters of any fiscal year; and
(2) Not to exceed, in any month of a fiscal year, 10% of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year.
Source: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/aprqtr/pdf/22cfr42.33.pdf
Assuming that USCIS approved (based on which it supposedly requested visa numbers from DOS) 60,000+ I-485 applications between June 13 and July 2, would it or would it not be in violation of the clause in bold ?
Specifically, can anyone come up with a proper explanation of the words "plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year" and why, if so is the case, USCIS may not have violated the law?
PS:People seem to be focusing on the eligibility to file the I-485 application when immigrant visa numbers are/aren't available in this thread. I am quite new to the procedures involved in processing green card applications and also to IV. If this question is out of place or silly, please pardon my naivette. I'd really appreciate it if a senior member could nevertheless answer the question.:)
Note: The information in this post is the personal opinion of the author and is not to be construed as legal advice.
Clause B is not the only thing. In any quarter they are not supposed to issue any more than 27% of 140,000(100%) = 37800. according to Clause A. After June 15th they issued 140,000 - 66000 = 74000. What about the last quarter quota of 37800? Where did it go? It was not supposed to be used before July.
DOS Reg 22 CFR �42.51:
(a) Centralized control. Centralized control of the numerical limitations on immigration specified in INA 201, 202, and 203 is established in the Department. The Department shall limit the number of immigrant visas that may be issued and the number of adjustments of status that may be granted to aliens subject to these numerical limitations to a number:
(1) Not to exceed 27 percent of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) in any of the first three quarters of any fiscal year; and
(2) Not to exceed, in any month of a fiscal year, 10% of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year.
Source: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/aprqtr/pdf/22cfr42.33.pdf
Assuming that USCIS approved (based on which it supposedly requested visa numbers from DOS) 60,000+ I-485 applications between June 13 and July 2, would it or would it not be in violation of the clause in bold ?
Specifically, can anyone come up with a proper explanation of the words "plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year" and why, if so is the case, USCIS may not have violated the law?
PS:People seem to be focusing on the eligibility to file the I-485 application when immigrant visa numbers are/aren't available in this thread. I am quite new to the procedures involved in processing green card applications and also to IV. If this question is out of place or silly, please pardon my naivette. I'd really appreciate it if a senior member could nevertheless answer the question.:)
Note: The information in this post is the personal opinion of the author and is not to be construed as legal advice.
Clause B is not the only thing. In any quarter they are not supposed to issue any more than 27% of 140,000(100%) = 37800. according to Clause A. After June 15th they issued 140,000 - 66000 = 74000. What about the last quarter quota of 37800? Where did it go? It was not supposed to be used before July.
more...
house 2001 Ford Explorer Sport Trac
shankar_thanu
04-04 02:53 PM
This bill would affect all of us if they apply these same rules when we try to exend or transfer out existing H1s. Does it(the bill) say anything about that?
tattoo Sales of the Explorer have
h1techSlave
03-22 10:42 AM
I have noticed that the % prior to Jan 2004 is a whopping 44.06. I have a bad feeling that this group (prior to Jan 2004) is growing. :eek:
more...
pictures 2010 Ford Explorer Sport Trac
chanduv23
09-28 11:25 AM
People are always prejudiced against something. If it is not race or ethnicity, it's country of origin, province of origin, class, gender, faith, or whether you are poor or rich. Even poor people have prejudices against rich people. And people tend to group with people who share their prejudice to fight against those who they are prejudiced against. It just makes life miserable for everybody.
But at least when the two groups who are against each other are about the same is size, you will feel less pressure. If there are very few foreign professionals working among a largely native population, they will feel a lot of pressure.
And thats exactly what is happening to us here. All these politicians are providing mere lip service to us and play their vote bank politics.
This is very much a reason that we need to unite and rise. Our own people have prejudiced opinions among us, like fulltime jobs versus consulting companies. MS degree vs under grad, US educated vs non US educated, and it goes on - the more divided we are, the more issues we face because the community opposing us is higher in number and are voting public.
If we do not unite and still continue to do things in small numbers, things will not change easily.
But at least when the two groups who are against each other are about the same is size, you will feel less pressure. If there are very few foreign professionals working among a largely native population, they will feel a lot of pressure.
And thats exactly what is happening to us here. All these politicians are providing mere lip service to us and play their vote bank politics.
This is very much a reason that we need to unite and rise. Our own people have prejudiced opinions among us, like fulltime jobs versus consulting companies. MS degree vs under grad, US educated vs non US educated, and it goes on - the more divided we are, the more issues we face because the community opposing us is higher in number and are voting public.
If we do not unite and still continue to do things in small numbers, things will not change easily.
dresses 2008 Ford Explorer Sport Trac
snathan
03-10 01:13 PM
Yes...we need to get the unused visa numbers. But this is not the right time for that. Because of the economy there will be huge outcry and we should avoid the negative publicity.
In this situation if things are not going bad for us, we should be happy. At least for status quo rather than losing what we have.
In this situation if things are not going bad for us, we should be happy. At least for status quo rather than losing what we have.
more...
makeup 2010 Ford Explorer Sport Trac
qesehmk
02-11 07:31 PM
So, according to you, what happens when no action is taken for assigned visa number?
What matters is number of visas used. Have you looked at the numbers?
I actually was saying I agreed w you. Read my post again... I was trying to say a few things over and above...
Aside from that, I have questioned Ron's correctness on this particular issue well before you produced that data.
Also if people somehow do not want to pay attention to facts then so be it.. Why be rude?
What matters is number of visas used. Have you looked at the numbers?
I actually was saying I agreed w you. Read my post again... I was trying to say a few things over and above...
Aside from that, I have questioned Ron's correctness on this particular issue well before you produced that data.
Also if people somehow do not want to pay attention to facts then so be it.. Why be rude?
girlfriend 2003 Ford Explorer Sport Trac
thomachan72
07-05 04:46 PM
Money never, never comes last, IMHO. Money does have its place right beside grass root efforts. Any one who undermines either of them at any time is making a huge mistake.
I am scratching my head to figure out how IV benefits with non paying members? If you say that by being a member of IV, we have done the honors, I have no answer for you. If you say that we all boast about being a 15K member org, You can pass on me. Are you a proponent of "I dont care how IV benefits from me, All that I care for is if I got my question answered or not " thought process? As long as we see IV only as a forum and compare with other forums, we will never see the invaluable difference. while eulogizing the founders, also try to see what they would like us to do. I am positive they would love more contributions than a simple eulogy so that we can enable ourselves with more ammo. Thanks for the undeserved pat. I will be happy if people take a moment and introspect their stand on this issue.
Friend I dont disagree with you regarding the value of money but we should think in the context of the current situation, right? The CIR is gone for now. It may / may not come back in 2009, who knows. Now we have the 485 filing crisis. You said we have 15000 members. How many of these are actually affected by the current crisis?? I can tell about one person, myself, certainly I am not affected directly. Now if lets say 20% are affected that would be 3000, right? Do you know how many people applied for 485 this time, it certainly is in the 100K or much more numbers. Now if we start being very critical of the few here (approx 3000), who have not contributed, we are making a mistake. I may be completely wrong on these numericals. Lets hope everybody contributes (if IV actually needs fund urgently). Atleast regarding the present crisis we are fortunate the AILF is taking up the case for FREE. People who want to contribute can through IV or even directly. I dont think contribution is going to make a difference here. This is not a lobbying effort involving the pattonbog, this is a legal case in which we are just joining.
I am scratching my head to figure out how IV benefits with non paying members? If you say that by being a member of IV, we have done the honors, I have no answer for you. If you say that we all boast about being a 15K member org, You can pass on me. Are you a proponent of "I dont care how IV benefits from me, All that I care for is if I got my question answered or not " thought process? As long as we see IV only as a forum and compare with other forums, we will never see the invaluable difference. while eulogizing the founders, also try to see what they would like us to do. I am positive they would love more contributions than a simple eulogy so that we can enable ourselves with more ammo. Thanks for the undeserved pat. I will be happy if people take a moment and introspect their stand on this issue.
Friend I dont disagree with you regarding the value of money but we should think in the context of the current situation, right? The CIR is gone for now. It may / may not come back in 2009, who knows. Now we have the 485 filing crisis. You said we have 15000 members. How many of these are actually affected by the current crisis?? I can tell about one person, myself, certainly I am not affected directly. Now if lets say 20% are affected that would be 3000, right? Do you know how many people applied for 485 this time, it certainly is in the 100K or much more numbers. Now if we start being very critical of the few here (approx 3000), who have not contributed, we are making a mistake. I may be completely wrong on these numericals. Lets hope everybody contributes (if IV actually needs fund urgently). Atleast regarding the present crisis we are fortunate the AILF is taking up the case for FREE. People who want to contribute can through IV or even directly. I dont think contribution is going to make a difference here. This is not a lobbying effort involving the pattonbog, this is a legal case in which we are just joining.
hairstyles 2007 Ford Explorer Sport Trac
jonty_11
07-09 06:36 PM
I came across this law about the departmental control of numerical limitations, and I'd appreciate it if you all could post your interpretations of the same.
DOS Reg 22 CFR �42.51:
(a) Centralized control. Centralized control of the numerical limitations on immigration specified in INA 201, 202, and 203 is established in the Department. The Department shall limit the number of immigrant visas that may be issued and the number of adjustments of status that may be granted to aliens subject to these numerical limitations to a number:
(1) Not to exceed 27 percent of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) in any of the first three quarters of any fiscal year; and
(2) Not to exceed, in any month of a fiscal year, 10% of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year.
Source: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/aprqtr/pdf/22cfr42.33.pdf
Assuming that USCIS approved (based on which it supposedly requested visa numbers from DOS) 60,000+ I-485 applications between June 13 and July 2, would it or would it not be in violation of the clause in bold ?
Specifically, can anyone come up with a proper explanation of the words "plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year" and why, if so is the case, USCIS may not have violated the law?
PS:People seem to be focusing on the eligibility to file the I-485 application when immigrant visa numbers are/aren't available in this thread. I am quite new to the procedures involved in processing green card applications and also to IV. If this question is out of place or silly, please pardon my naivette. I'd really appreciate it if a senior member could nevertheless answer the question.:)
Note: The information in this post is the personal opinion of the author and is not to be construed as legal advice.
text in bold has a GREY area....'plus remaining balance from previous months.'
They can always say the additional approvals were left over from previous months...
DOS Reg 22 CFR �42.51:
(a) Centralized control. Centralized control of the numerical limitations on immigration specified in INA 201, 202, and 203 is established in the Department. The Department shall limit the number of immigrant visas that may be issued and the number of adjustments of status that may be granted to aliens subject to these numerical limitations to a number:
(1) Not to exceed 27 percent of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) in any of the first three quarters of any fiscal year; and
(2) Not to exceed, in any month of a fiscal year, 10% of the world-wide total made available under INA 203(a), (b) and (c) plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year.
Source: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/aprqtr/pdf/22cfr42.33.pdf
Assuming that USCIS approved (based on which it supposedly requested visa numbers from DOS) 60,000+ I-485 applications between June 13 and July 2, would it or would it not be in violation of the clause in bold ?
Specifically, can anyone come up with a proper explanation of the words "plus any balance remaining from authorizations for preceding months in the same fiscal year" and why, if so is the case, USCIS may not have violated the law?
PS:People seem to be focusing on the eligibility to file the I-485 application when immigrant visa numbers are/aren't available in this thread. I am quite new to the procedures involved in processing green card applications and also to IV. If this question is out of place or silly, please pardon my naivette. I'd really appreciate it if a senior member could nevertheless answer the question.:)
Note: The information in this post is the personal opinion of the author and is not to be construed as legal advice.
text in bold has a GREY area....'plus remaining balance from previous months.'
They can always say the additional approvals were left over from previous months...
mps
05-15 05:34 PM
Here is a list of F50 CEO and which college they went to,
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1227055,00.html
I see very few going to top 10 colleges.
I'm doing my online MBA from Devry (Keller Graduate School of Management) and my spouse is doing it from UOP - at both the colleges professors are excellent, course material is good. Devry is more intense with midterm and final exams.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1227055,00.html
I see very few going to top 10 colleges.
I'm doing my online MBA from Devry (Keller Graduate School of Management) and my spouse is doing it from UOP - at both the colleges professors are excellent, course material is good. Devry is more intense with midterm and final exams.
mchundi
07-24 10:32 AM
To the core group/Senior Members,
If I understand it right, the ability to concurrently file I40/I485 was introduced by the legacy INS through a memo in July of 2002 and it went effective almost immediately on July 31st 2002. I've tried to search for news archives on different law websites and to best of my knowledge it was purely an executive decision taken by INS governing body and no congressional or judicial intervention was needed to allow concurrent filing. In a very similar fashion, the new USCIS has indicated that it wants to discontinue concurrent filing in near future...an executive decision again.
Is it a possibility to get an audience with the USCIS director/start a letter campaign with the goal of getting them issue a memo allowing filing of I485/EAD even if the visa number is not available? The adjucation of the case would obviously happen only after visa number becomes available but as we all know this will be a big relief for all those who want to use AC21 provisions.
Passage of CIR/SKIL is very important in the longer run to reduce the overall greencard processing time and alleviate heavy backlogs but if we get this small relief right now it would help a lot of individuals from retrogressed countries waiting to file I485...and the good thing is, it looks like USCIS might have the ability to effect this change without a lengthy legislative process.
Any thoughts ??
In the recently released ombudsman's report there was a concern that USCIS is giving EAD's for all AOS applications without checking the case and later rejects 20% of the cases.
It might be tough to push them to take a decesion like this.
On the other hand the hospital and doctor's lobby is going to push for some more relief for the nurses VISA numbers if the CIR doesnot materialize this year, If that happens we can try and lobby to attach some of our issues to that.
--MC
If I understand it right, the ability to concurrently file I40/I485 was introduced by the legacy INS through a memo in July of 2002 and it went effective almost immediately on July 31st 2002. I've tried to search for news archives on different law websites and to best of my knowledge it was purely an executive decision taken by INS governing body and no congressional or judicial intervention was needed to allow concurrent filing. In a very similar fashion, the new USCIS has indicated that it wants to discontinue concurrent filing in near future...an executive decision again.
Is it a possibility to get an audience with the USCIS director/start a letter campaign with the goal of getting them issue a memo allowing filing of I485/EAD even if the visa number is not available? The adjucation of the case would obviously happen only after visa number becomes available but as we all know this will be a big relief for all those who want to use AC21 provisions.
Passage of CIR/SKIL is very important in the longer run to reduce the overall greencard processing time and alleviate heavy backlogs but if we get this small relief right now it would help a lot of individuals from retrogressed countries waiting to file I485...and the good thing is, it looks like USCIS might have the ability to effect this change without a lengthy legislative process.
Any thoughts ??
In the recently released ombudsman's report there was a concern that USCIS is giving EAD's for all AOS applications without checking the case and later rejects 20% of the cases.
It might be tough to push them to take a decesion like this.
On the other hand the hospital and doctor's lobby is going to push for some more relief for the nurses VISA numbers if the CIR doesnot materialize this year, If that happens we can try and lobby to attach some of our issues to that.
--MC
No comments:
Post a Comment