gc_on_demand
09-16 10:15 AM
Single Person's Effort Makes Difference
Everyone should try.
Please call committee memebers and local congressmen/women
Everyone should try.
Please call committee memebers and local congressmen/women
wallpaper wallpaper led by Optimus Prime
Lisap
09-12 05:30 PM
Call (in the morning) 1-800-375-5283 and follow this sequence: 1,2,2,6,1,1,1,3,4.
If the Immigration Officer is kind enough you can ask if the Name Check is cleared. If he/she says No, you can ask him/her the date it was sent to the FBI.
I called today and they couldnt tell me anything at the 800 number they just said that they would contact me if they needed any information.... guess I just sit tight for now!
If the Immigration Officer is kind enough you can ask if the Name Check is cleared. If he/she says No, you can ask him/her the date it was sent to the FBI.
I called today and they couldnt tell me anything at the 800 number they just said that they would contact me if they needed any information.... guess I just sit tight for now!
desi3933
06-16 11:54 AM
.... Why should they even extend H1 beyond 6 years?. If they do not extend H1, always new guys can keep coming on L1/H1 and the cost to employers will be much less. .....
>> Why should they even extend H1 beyond 6 years?
This is a very good question. When I was on H-1B visa, at that time, it can not be extended beyond 6 years. At that time, people will move to home country/Canada for 1 one year, plan to move to O visa if qualified, will try to regain time for out of US time etc. The argument was gaining strength that person should get green card before her/his 6 years are up. To make matter worse, H1 and H4 time was counted together.
Now, rather than providing the long term solution of increasing the quota for green cards per year, EB based applicants were offered band-aid solution of extending H1 indefinitely beyond 6 years if labor is pending > 365 calendar days or I-140 is pending/approved. This was further sugar coated that if I-485 is not approved in standard processing time of 6 months, applicant can change GC job for same/similar classification. People were very happy with AC-21 and many thought (and they still think) that getting EAD is like a provisonal green card, as they can change job easily and employer can no longer "control" them.
Now, since H1 can be extended beyond 6 years, the arguement for faster green card has become weaker. Reason is simple, since applicant can work for "green card sposoring" employer for infinite time, even if I-485 is not filed.
In my opionion, ac-21 was a band-aid solution. Strangely enough, perople are still looking for more band-aid solutions.
Well, as they say, history repeats itelf.
_________________________
US citizen of Indian origin
>> Why should they even extend H1 beyond 6 years?
This is a very good question. When I was on H-1B visa, at that time, it can not be extended beyond 6 years. At that time, people will move to home country/Canada for 1 one year, plan to move to O visa if qualified, will try to regain time for out of US time etc. The argument was gaining strength that person should get green card before her/his 6 years are up. To make matter worse, H1 and H4 time was counted together.
Now, rather than providing the long term solution of increasing the quota for green cards per year, EB based applicants were offered band-aid solution of extending H1 indefinitely beyond 6 years if labor is pending > 365 calendar days or I-140 is pending/approved. This was further sugar coated that if I-485 is not approved in standard processing time of 6 months, applicant can change GC job for same/similar classification. People were very happy with AC-21 and many thought (and they still think) that getting EAD is like a provisonal green card, as they can change job easily and employer can no longer "control" them.
Now, since H1 can be extended beyond 6 years, the arguement for faster green card has become weaker. Reason is simple, since applicant can work for "green card sposoring" employer for infinite time, even if I-485 is not filed.
In my opionion, ac-21 was a band-aid solution. Strangely enough, perople are still looking for more band-aid solutions.
Well, as they say, history repeats itelf.
_________________________
US citizen of Indian origin
2011 Optimus Prime Transformers
MeraNaamJoker
09-15 01:36 PM
Can someone please post the steps to open an SR and get an Infopass? I may have a biometrics appointment coming up soon. Can they help with application status questions?
TIA
Biometrics has no questions to answer. Just follow their instructions at the center.
To create SR,
Call the toll free number and select some options for you to reach a live representative.
Tell them that you are waiting for a very long time and needs update.
You need to have your receipt notice with you. And your wife too (matters only if you are married, just for the sake of it, do not bring in anyone else's wife...just kidding)
If your wife is not with you, they will create the SR for her. Hence suggested. Take down the name of Rep and the confirmation number.
That's it.
TIA
Biometrics has no questions to answer. Just follow their instructions at the center.
To create SR,
Call the toll free number and select some options for you to reach a live representative.
Tell them that you are waiting for a very long time and needs update.
You need to have your receipt notice with you. And your wife too (matters only if you are married, just for the sake of it, do not bring in anyone else's wife...just kidding)
If your wife is not with you, they will create the SR for her. Hence suggested. Take down the name of Rep and the confirmation number.
That's it.
more...
HawaldarNaik
09-16 10:32 AM
Just called the nos, the lady who answered in Berman's office said he fully supports the bill and will do his part to support it tomorrow
gjoe
08-07 10:54 AM
Sunny and Rolling came out as selfish to the majority of the members because they just focused on their issues first and identified some of the root causes for their long wait.
I think we should all atleast encourage them in their pursuit for justice. We have nothing to lose. When a specific group works on an issue which is affecting them most they would do the best to get that fixed.
This would motivate other smaller groups with other issues to take up theirs seperately. The more this happens the more heat it will generate on these 3 agencies DOL, USCIS and DOS.
Then we as a bigger organization can work much faster on getting the bigger issues resolved which in turn will fix lots of these smaller things in the system.
These kind of initatives are a win win for everybody. Every small step would help us go move towards our goal instead of trying to take one gaint step and getting bogged down.
PS: Waiting for miracles is onething for people who trust in God
But acting on ones own issue can get them closer to that miracle
I think we should all atleast encourage them in their pursuit for justice. We have nothing to lose. When a specific group works on an issue which is affecting them most they would do the best to get that fixed.
This would motivate other smaller groups with other issues to take up theirs seperately. The more this happens the more heat it will generate on these 3 agencies DOL, USCIS and DOS.
Then we as a bigger organization can work much faster on getting the bigger issues resolved which in turn will fix lots of these smaller things in the system.
These kind of initatives are a win win for everybody. Every small step would help us go move towards our goal instead of trying to take one gaint step and getting bogged down.
PS: Waiting for miracles is onething for people who trust in God
But acting on ones own issue can get them closer to that miracle
more...
__scaled_500.jpg "all the Transformers news")
ndialani
10-15 04:04 PM
Hi Rubaru,
congrats!
Did you wait for 6 months after opening the first SR?
I got that reply letter from USCIS.
Hi All,
I received the CPO email yesterday.My case details are PD : Dec 2004, 485 RD : Aug 6th 2007(I140 Filed concurrently),EB2 India.140 was approved on Tuesday.
I140 was pending from 2007.When my attorney followed up in feb this year,USCIS gave the standard reply of waiting for 6months.After that they said,they will update in 10 days.They didn't update even after that and then i moved it to premium processing on Sept 28th.
Took 2 info passes in Septembter(regd i140 mainly).First one was not of much help though the officer told my 485 is assigned to IO on Sept 8th.Second time it was different officer and she was very helpful.Tried looking why my 140 is getting delayed but she said ,if she opens my file then 485 file will go back to review queue as it is currently being reviewed by Sept 18th.So she didn't recommend doing that.I didn't open any SR after my first experience of 6 months waiting(without an result!!!)
Before 485 approval day(i.e Tuesday) i called IO TSC Center but he doesn't know anything when i mentioned that my PD is Dec 2004 & that my case is current from last month.,he told my PD is the RD of 485.I thought no point in arguing with him and hung up.After that i was preparing to send mails to Senator but got the approval before that.
Anyway,happy that it finally got approved .I am waiting on my wife's approval thought
congrats!
Did you wait for 6 months after opening the first SR?
I got that reply letter from USCIS.
Hi All,
I received the CPO email yesterday.My case details are PD : Dec 2004, 485 RD : Aug 6th 2007(I140 Filed concurrently),EB2 India.140 was approved on Tuesday.
I140 was pending from 2007.When my attorney followed up in feb this year,USCIS gave the standard reply of waiting for 6months.After that they said,they will update in 10 days.They didn't update even after that and then i moved it to premium processing on Sept 28th.
Took 2 info passes in Septembter(regd i140 mainly).First one was not of much help though the officer told my 485 is assigned to IO on Sept 8th.Second time it was different officer and she was very helpful.Tried looking why my 140 is getting delayed but she said ,if she opens my file then 485 file will go back to review queue as it is currently being reviewed by Sept 18th.So she didn't recommend doing that.I didn't open any SR after my first experience of 6 months waiting(without an result!!!)
Before 485 approval day(i.e Tuesday) i called IO TSC Center but he doesn't know anything when i mentioned that my PD is Dec 2004 & that my case is current from last month.,he told my PD is the RD of 485.I thought no point in arguing with him and hung up.After that i was preparing to send mails to Senator but got the approval before that.
Anyway,happy that it finally got approved .I am waiting on my wife's approval thought
2010 new Ultimate Optimus Prime
fcres
07-31 03:44 PM
1. If a Receipt Number is issued for a I-485, does it necessarily mean that the case won't outright be rejected for a missing document/ evidence, but instead an RFE will be issued?
2. When a receipt number is issued for a I-485, and if we send out the missing document/initial evidence using the allocated A#, is there a good likelihood that the evidence/document will make it to the appropriate file?
Answers to these will help make a decision on filing multiple I-485's where the first I-485 missed some initial evidence.
Thanks!
One more thing: I was about to make another private consultation call today. I pledge contributing $200 if I find a concrete answer to this issue without having to consult one more lawyer.
My laywer ( a known one, but not the regulars here) also didn't include EVL. When i asked him about it, he said whether we include it now or not, they will issue an RFE at the time of adjudication. I was content with that, but after reading about it more here, i pressed him again about the issue and the new memo. He said he does not foresee a denial because of this, but if i'm worried we will send the EVL along with a cover letter and the RN. But filing another 485 is not advisable. I'm working on the EVL, and once he is less busy after Aug 17th i will ask him to send it. And i hope it will make it to the right file if we include the RN and A#, just like replying to an RFE.
btw, to answer #1, i did get RN so i would think the case may not be outright rejected for missing evidence. I did FP and my LUD was changed for 485 and 131. I filed 765 later and that also has an LUD after FP.
2. When a receipt number is issued for a I-485, and if we send out the missing document/initial evidence using the allocated A#, is there a good likelihood that the evidence/document will make it to the appropriate file?
Answers to these will help make a decision on filing multiple I-485's where the first I-485 missed some initial evidence.
Thanks!
One more thing: I was about to make another private consultation call today. I pledge contributing $200 if I find a concrete answer to this issue without having to consult one more lawyer.
My laywer ( a known one, but not the regulars here) also didn't include EVL. When i asked him about it, he said whether we include it now or not, they will issue an RFE at the time of adjudication. I was content with that, but after reading about it more here, i pressed him again about the issue and the new memo. He said he does not foresee a denial because of this, but if i'm worried we will send the EVL along with a cover letter and the RN. But filing another 485 is not advisable. I'm working on the EVL, and once he is less busy after Aug 17th i will ask him to send it. And i hope it will make it to the right file if we include the RN and A#, just like replying to an RFE.
btw, to answer #1, i did get RN so i would think the case may not be outright rejected for missing evidence. I did FP and my LUD was changed for 485 and 131. I filed 765 later and that also has an LUD after FP.
more...
gagbag
07-11 01:04 PM
http://www.ilw.com/articles/2007,0710-lee.shtm
hair images Transformers Dark of
dalssunil
09-19 08:57 PM
Dear dreamworld,
First of all thanks a lot for your reply and i further have some question if you could please help me understand that. the situations is that I have given my New I140 (EB2) to my lawyer and all he did was took a copy of my I485 receipt notice and said he will send that to USCIS. My PD on EB3 is Feb. 2003, how would I come to know if my EB3 PD was ported to EB2 by that I mean to how I would come to know if my I485 was ported to EB2 and still have PD of Feb 2003...
Thanks In advance�
First of all thanks a lot for your reply and i further have some question if you could please help me understand that. the situations is that I have given my New I140 (EB2) to my lawyer and all he did was took a copy of my I485 receipt notice and said he will send that to USCIS. My PD on EB3 is Feb. 2003, how would I come to know if my EB3 PD was ported to EB2 by that I mean to how I would come to know if my I485 was ported to EB2 and still have PD of Feb 2003...
Thanks In advance�
more...
pmb76
07-14 04:03 PM
Please sign the petition below
http://www.petitiononline.com/loudobbs/petition.html
http://www.petitiononline.com/loudobbs/petition.html
hot Transformers: Dark of the Moon
gdhiren
07-11 12:02 PM
Nice to know the film makers comment about our campaign. How about contacting them to get the hundreds of DVDs of 'Lage Raho Munnabhai' and send them to Walter Reed where flowers are going? Just a vague thought, I am sure someone else also mentioned similar thing earlier.
more...
house Transformers Dark Of Moon
DallasBlue
08-12 02:44 PM
http://www.ailf.org/lac/clearinghouse_mandamus.shtml
Plaintiffs' Arguments
Plaintiffs have responded to USCIS with legal arguments summarized below. The case citations provide recent examples of cases where the courts have agreed with plaintiffs' arguments. For further discussion of the elements of a successful mandamus complaint, see AILF's Practice Advisory, "Mandamus Actions: Avoiding Dismissal and Proving the Case."
1) Plaintiffs have a clear right to have their adjustment applications and visa petitions adjudicated in a timely manner.
Plaintiffs maintain that the right to adjudication is derived from USCIS's mandatory duty to process the applications and the fact that plaintiffs are the intended beneficiaries of the applications. See 8 C.F.R. 245.2(a)(5)(i) (providing that the "applicant shall be notified of the decision of the director and, if the application is denied, the reasons for the denial"); Haidari v. Frazier, No. 06-3215, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89177, *10 (D. Minn. 2006) (holding that 8 C.F.R. � 209.2 creates a nondiscretionary duty to adjudicate adjustment applications).
The plaintiffs' right to a timely adjudication, though not explicit in the regulation, is present in section 555(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act, which requires that "with due regard for the convenience and necessity of the parties or their representatives and within a reasonable time, each agency shall proceed to conclude a matter presented to it." See Haidari, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89177 at *11. To determine if a delay is unreasonable, courts examine the reasons for delay. For example, they look to whether USCIS asked for the FBI name check in a timely manner and whether USCIS failed to timely process the applications before requesting the name check and after receiving the information from the FBI. See Haidari, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89177 at *16-17; Singh v. Still, No. 06-2458, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16334, *13-14 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (reasoning that respondents failed to explain why it took two-and-a-half years to initiate a security check with the FBI, why no action was taken to follow up with the FBI until the mandamus suit was filed, and why it took so long to process plaintiff's initial fingerprints); Aboushaban v. Mueller, No. 06-1280, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81076, *14 (N.D. Cal. 2006) ("[t]he FBI's delay in processing plaintiff's name check remains largely unexplained, and the remainder of defendants' arguments do not adequately excuse the delays plaintiff encountered.").
2) USCIS has a nondiscretionary duty to process applications and petitions.
USCIS has the discretion to grant or deny the application, but this does not bear on the nondiscretionary duty to make a decision on the application or petition. See Razaq v. Poulos, No. 06-2461, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 770, *9-10 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (reasoning that the fact that there is no specific deadline in the statute or regulation does not change the ministerial duty to process the application). In addition, INA � 242(a)(2)(B)(ii), 8 U.S.C. �1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), does not strip the court of jurisdiction to hear mandamus actions because no "decision or action" has taken place within the meaning of the statutory language. See Haidari, No. 06-3215, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89177 at *13-14 (D. Minn. 2006) (reasoning that because plaintiffs have neither been denied nor granted relief, � 242(a)(2)(B) does not bar jurisdiction); Li Duan v. Zamberry, No. 06-1351, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12697, *6-7 (W.D. Pa. 2007) (finding that INA � 242(a)(2)(B) does not apply because the pace of the adjudication of applications is not the type of discretionary "action" contemplated by the statute). For more information and earlier case law addressing discretionary decisions after the REAL ID Act please see AILF Practice Advisory, "Federal Court Jurisdiction Over Discretionary Decisions After REAL ID: Mandamus, Other Affirmative Suits and Petitions for Review."
3) There is no other remedy available to plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs also have argued that waiting for security checks to be completed is not an adequate remedy. The fact that plaintiffs are waiting is the exact harm plaintiffs are seeking to remedy. See Singh, No. 06-2458, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16334 at *23-24 (N.D. Cal. 2007) ("waiting for an agency to act cannot logically be an adequate alternative to an order compelling the agency to act. . .") (citations omitted); Haidari, No. 06-3215, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89177 at *15 (D. Minn. 2006) (reasoning that waiting is not an adequate remedy because the question is whether plaintiffs have an adequate alternative remedy to the waiting itself).
Plaintiffs' Arguments
Plaintiffs have responded to USCIS with legal arguments summarized below. The case citations provide recent examples of cases where the courts have agreed with plaintiffs' arguments. For further discussion of the elements of a successful mandamus complaint, see AILF's Practice Advisory, "Mandamus Actions: Avoiding Dismissal and Proving the Case."
1) Plaintiffs have a clear right to have their adjustment applications and visa petitions adjudicated in a timely manner.
Plaintiffs maintain that the right to adjudication is derived from USCIS's mandatory duty to process the applications and the fact that plaintiffs are the intended beneficiaries of the applications. See 8 C.F.R. 245.2(a)(5)(i) (providing that the "applicant shall be notified of the decision of the director and, if the application is denied, the reasons for the denial"); Haidari v. Frazier, No. 06-3215, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89177, *10 (D. Minn. 2006) (holding that 8 C.F.R. � 209.2 creates a nondiscretionary duty to adjudicate adjustment applications).
The plaintiffs' right to a timely adjudication, though not explicit in the regulation, is present in section 555(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act, which requires that "with due regard for the convenience and necessity of the parties or their representatives and within a reasonable time, each agency shall proceed to conclude a matter presented to it." See Haidari, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89177 at *11. To determine if a delay is unreasonable, courts examine the reasons for delay. For example, they look to whether USCIS asked for the FBI name check in a timely manner and whether USCIS failed to timely process the applications before requesting the name check and after receiving the information from the FBI. See Haidari, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89177 at *16-17; Singh v. Still, No. 06-2458, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16334, *13-14 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (reasoning that respondents failed to explain why it took two-and-a-half years to initiate a security check with the FBI, why no action was taken to follow up with the FBI until the mandamus suit was filed, and why it took so long to process plaintiff's initial fingerprints); Aboushaban v. Mueller, No. 06-1280, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81076, *14 (N.D. Cal. 2006) ("[t]he FBI's delay in processing plaintiff's name check remains largely unexplained, and the remainder of defendants' arguments do not adequately excuse the delays plaintiff encountered.").
2) USCIS has a nondiscretionary duty to process applications and petitions.
USCIS has the discretion to grant or deny the application, but this does not bear on the nondiscretionary duty to make a decision on the application or petition. See Razaq v. Poulos, No. 06-2461, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 770, *9-10 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (reasoning that the fact that there is no specific deadline in the statute or regulation does not change the ministerial duty to process the application). In addition, INA � 242(a)(2)(B)(ii), 8 U.S.C. �1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), does not strip the court of jurisdiction to hear mandamus actions because no "decision or action" has taken place within the meaning of the statutory language. See Haidari, No. 06-3215, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89177 at *13-14 (D. Minn. 2006) (reasoning that because plaintiffs have neither been denied nor granted relief, � 242(a)(2)(B) does not bar jurisdiction); Li Duan v. Zamberry, No. 06-1351, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12697, *6-7 (W.D. Pa. 2007) (finding that INA � 242(a)(2)(B) does not apply because the pace of the adjudication of applications is not the type of discretionary "action" contemplated by the statute). For more information and earlier case law addressing discretionary decisions after the REAL ID Act please see AILF Practice Advisory, "Federal Court Jurisdiction Over Discretionary Decisions After REAL ID: Mandamus, Other Affirmative Suits and Petitions for Review."
3) There is no other remedy available to plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs also have argued that waiting for security checks to be completed is not an adequate remedy. The fact that plaintiffs are waiting is the exact harm plaintiffs are seeking to remedy. See Singh, No. 06-2458, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16334 at *23-24 (N.D. Cal. 2007) ("waiting for an agency to act cannot logically be an adequate alternative to an order compelling the agency to act. . .") (citations omitted); Haidari, No. 06-3215, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89177 at *15 (D. Minn. 2006) (reasoning that waiting is not an adequate remedy because the question is whether plaintiffs have an adequate alternative remedy to the waiting itself).
tattoo Transformers Dark Of The Moon
makemygc
08-09 12:34 PM
When does the clock start for the FBI name check delay? In other words, when people say my name check is pending for 20 months, what exactly is the starting point....is it the day you file your 485?
more...
pictures all the Transformers news
mbawa2574
01-24 04:19 PM
No doubt Emirates is the one of the best airline One problem flying through middle-east is that you may be taken in for secondary inspection. Happened with my friend twice when he flew Kuwait. Never happened with other Airlines. My experience flying KLM,Lufthansa, Swiss is been the best.
dresses Transformers-Dark-Of-The-Moon-
__scaled_500.jpg "Sentinel Prime is Optimus")
venetian
10-21 03:11 PM
Today my friend, his wife and kid got CPO emails. His PD is Aug 2004, EB2-India.
more...
makeup dresses TRANSFORMERS DARK OF
eb3_nepa
01-08 11:18 AM
This brings back old memories back in early 2006. I had brought this point up and actually even written to the White House (and got the generic response back). Unfortunately back then we were a much smaller organization and not as well recognized and not as knowledgeble and as organized as now.
Good to see we're finally taking this step "en-masse"
Good to see we're finally taking this step "en-masse"
girlfriend transformers-Dark-of-the-moon-
lazycis
10-16 08:55 PM
One idea is to give GC to AOS applicants regardless of namecheck result, if all
other security checks are OK and let the namecheck run in background . If the namecheck turns out critical , cancel the GC & deport the applicant.
But USCIS and lawyers will loose big time , because of reduced demand for APs,EADs etc.
This is exactly as Congress intended it to be. There is no mandatory requirement to complete NC before GC can be issued in the INA. There is a provision to cancel GC in the INA.
other security checks are OK and let the namecheck run in background . If the namecheck turns out critical , cancel the GC & deport the applicant.
But USCIS and lawyers will loose big time , because of reduced demand for APs,EADs etc.
This is exactly as Congress intended it to be. There is no mandatory requirement to complete NC before GC can be issued in the INA. There is a provision to cancel GC in the INA.
hairstyles a link to Optimus Prime.
nkalpana
02-27 02:29 AM
Hi Stuck here...
So you should change your ID now!!
Good luck!!
Regards,
NK
So you should change your ID now!!
Good luck!!
Regards,
NK
gc_on_demand
09-16 11:33 AM
http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/calendar.html cliclk on hearing related to FBI
ras
09-30 02:37 PM
I already took Vonage world phone. I am happy with it. However, I happened to see somewhere in the thread about Lingo offering india calling even through the mobile. That had me give a second thought on switching over to Lingo.
However, when I read the fine print on the lingo site, it mentions you cannot call Mobile phones in India. This catch makes me go crazy. Can some one confirm how are they handling with this constraint. Is that still a good option to switch over vonage to lingo based on this single feature?
Thoughts are welcome...
However, when I read the fine print on the lingo site, it mentions you cannot call Mobile phones in India. This catch makes me go crazy. Can some one confirm how are they handling with this constraint. Is that still a good option to switch over vonage to lingo based on this single feature?
Thoughts are welcome...
No comments:
Post a Comment