Googler
07-20 12:53 AM
But this won't be easy "Do you want us to compromise on national security", will be the first question asked . They will acknowledge the applicants pain and won't budge . "We know thousands like you are getting screwed for many years, but national security is foremost'.
Man, these forums are getting chaotic -- we need a reorganization so that duplicative threads are avoided. Namecheck probably needs its own subforum.
I didn't want to re-post what I said in the name check sticky thread, so here is a link http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=126248&postcount=351.
As for the argument that the name check process enhances national security that is not really true.
(a) how is national security enhanced by having someone sit around renewing their EAD hanging out in the country year after year -- they should really be hurrying if they are so worried about the risk we pose.
(b) there is considerable internal debate about the usefulness of the "reference file" part of the check; the part that causes these huge delays. Read the name check section of the Ombudsmans 2007 report.
(c) if national security is being preserved by this process why isn't it fully funded through appropriations?? Surely catching a terrorist is worth more than the $2 per application that USCIS pays FBI.
(d) if national security is being preserved by this process, then why is FBI complaining (see recent press reports) that only 30 analysts are available for this reference file part of the analysis?
(e) Sec. Chertoff is always yammering on about "risk based" national security policy -- the FBI namecheck process is the opposite of risk based policy. See Ombudsman's 2007 report again.
Also note that 8 USC 1571 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001571----000-.html) states very clearly that "It is the sense of Congress that the processing of an immigration benefit application should be completed not later than 180 days after the initial filing of the application". Congress did not intend that the process should stretch on for years upon years. 8 USC 1571 was not stricken after the new name check guidelines were put into place.
These are all points that we have to hammer on -- to the press, to congress to absolutely everyone who says hi to us.
This should be a campaign as large as the one for the visa bulletin fiasco because the effect of the FBI Name Check is as devastating if not more devastating than the visa bulletin fiasco.
All these years we had no choice but to believe the BS that was trotted out by FBI (google Cannon, Garrity testimony) about how most records were done by the time you made your morning coffee, what are you thowing a tantrum about my lovely etc. I really sat up when I read the 2007 Ombudsmans report which finally provided data to support what so many people had been complaining about for years. Now no one can deny that the scale of the problem is unpardonably large.
Man, these forums are getting chaotic -- we need a reorganization so that duplicative threads are avoided. Namecheck probably needs its own subforum.
I didn't want to re-post what I said in the name check sticky thread, so here is a link http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showpost.php?p=126248&postcount=351.
As for the argument that the name check process enhances national security that is not really true.
(a) how is national security enhanced by having someone sit around renewing their EAD hanging out in the country year after year -- they should really be hurrying if they are so worried about the risk we pose.
(b) there is considerable internal debate about the usefulness of the "reference file" part of the check; the part that causes these huge delays. Read the name check section of the Ombudsmans 2007 report.
(c) if national security is being preserved by this process why isn't it fully funded through appropriations?? Surely catching a terrorist is worth more than the $2 per application that USCIS pays FBI.
(d) if national security is being preserved by this process, then why is FBI complaining (see recent press reports) that only 30 analysts are available for this reference file part of the analysis?
(e) Sec. Chertoff is always yammering on about "risk based" national security policy -- the FBI namecheck process is the opposite of risk based policy. See Ombudsman's 2007 report again.
Also note that 8 USC 1571 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001571----000-.html) states very clearly that "It is the sense of Congress that the processing of an immigration benefit application should be completed not later than 180 days after the initial filing of the application". Congress did not intend that the process should stretch on for years upon years. 8 USC 1571 was not stricken after the new name check guidelines were put into place.
These are all points that we have to hammer on -- to the press, to congress to absolutely everyone who says hi to us.
This should be a campaign as large as the one for the visa bulletin fiasco because the effect of the FBI Name Check is as devastating if not more devastating than the visa bulletin fiasco.
All these years we had no choice but to believe the BS that was trotted out by FBI (google Cannon, Garrity testimony) about how most records were done by the time you made your morning coffee, what are you thowing a tantrum about my lovely etc. I really sat up when I read the 2007 Ombudsmans report which finally provided data to support what so many people had been complaining about for years. Now no one can deny that the scale of the problem is unpardonably large.
wallpaper Maserati Quattroporte GT S
vdlrao
04-08 02:54 PM
On Page 3 they say total Employement based preferences number was 162,176
Than on page 6 they say total Employement based preferences number was 147,148
147,148 is the limit for EB category where as 162,176 are actual issued visa numbers for fiscal year 2007
Than on page 6 they say total Employement based preferences number was 147,148
147,148 is the limit for EB category where as 162,176 are actual issued visa numbers for fiscal year 2007
chanduv23
04-21 01:44 PM
If I485 is denied for wrong reason (due to USCIS error), I understand that the application and attorney can file a MTR, but during the time till the case is reopened again, is it legal for the employee to work on EAD?
My assumption here is once the denial notice is received, it may take few weeks/months to gather the necessary information, send it to USCIS and then the case gets reopened.
This is a grey area subject to interpretations. Talk to an Anttorney - the reason I say this is - when your 485 gets denied wrongfully (your Attorney will tell you if the REASON was wrongful) - say AC21 old employer revoke 140 after 180 days - then an MOTIC whould resolve your issue - which typically takes a few weeks to 2 months or a bit more. Whether you stay here or work here - it is the same - no "Particular status". Once your MOTIC gets approved, you are back in status - so it is a big grey area subject to interpretation and Attorneys have different views based on how conservative one wants to be.
If you are sure your 485 can get denied for a "right reason" - then MTR or Appeal may not work - so you have to work out other options.
My assumption here is once the denial notice is received, it may take few weeks/months to gather the necessary information, send it to USCIS and then the case gets reopened.
This is a grey area subject to interpretations. Talk to an Anttorney - the reason I say this is - when your 485 gets denied wrongfully (your Attorney will tell you if the REASON was wrongful) - say AC21 old employer revoke 140 after 180 days - then an MOTIC whould resolve your issue - which typically takes a few weeks to 2 months or a bit more. Whether you stay here or work here - it is the same - no "Particular status". Once your MOTIC gets approved, you are back in status - so it is a big grey area subject to interpretation and Attorneys have different views based on how conservative one wants to be.
If you are sure your 485 can get denied for a "right reason" - then MTR or Appeal may not work - so you have to work out other options.
2011 2011 Maserati Quattroporte
amulchandra
05-10 02:16 PM
Actually I am using IE.
Thank you
Indira
Thank you
Indira
more...
shankar_thanu
06-27 10:44 AM
I have been asked by my lawyer to enter the A# from OPT card if you have one, is this right?
ysiad
08-10 11:31 PM
One option is to change the address at USCIS and also put a hold on your mail for 30 days (max allowed) at the Post Office. Picking up held mail should be easy since you are in same city.
Thanks for the idea, that would be helpful! For my question 1, beside the mailing delay, I am also concerned on the delay of USCIS processing of my I-485 case. I don't know their internal procedure. Should I be worried about this or no delay on the procedure?
Thanks.
Thanks for the idea, that would be helpful! For my question 1, beside the mailing delay, I am also concerned on the delay of USCIS processing of my I-485 case. I don't know their internal procedure. Should I be worried about this or no delay on the procedure?
Thanks.
more...
terpcurt
November 2nd, 2003, 10:44 AM
Both of the following are about 500KB, so beforewarned...
I put a smaller beetle macro into the front-page gallery area, but here's a couple others.
1 Upclose and personal with a dandelion.
2. The same lens, used conventionally for a landscape. I printed this out at 19x13 and it's going to get framed.
Nice shots.......... I like the close ups with Macro, and also the landscapes with the old buildings overrun with ivy
I put a smaller beetle macro into the front-page gallery area, but here's a couple others.
1 Upclose and personal with a dandelion.
2. The same lens, used conventionally for a landscape. I printed this out at 19x13 and it's going to get framed.
Nice shots.......... I like the close ups with Macro, and also the landscapes with the old buildings overrun with ivy