LondonTown
03-08 03:32 PM
Thanks Drak. My attorney states otherwise though. He states that I-485 will be denied only after the ultimate denial of the I-140, which he says might take even about a year, and that in the mean time, I-485 will be valid and that she can continue to work on EAD.
P E R P L E X E D !!
I took advise of two lawyers (one is very famous) and both told that if I40 is denied/appealed - do not use EAD and file another PERM immediately, which I did.
P E R P L E X E D !!
I took advise of two lawyers (one is very famous) and both told that if I40 is denied/appealed - do not use EAD and file another PERM immediately, which I did.
Berkeleybee
03-01 02:05 PM
Another improvement if I may:
Wondering if the website administrator has the ability to send a mass email to all its members. This is to inform and urge all its members to send web faxes and be more involved in planned activities.
Also, I sent a webfax to all three required personnel, but was hesitant to act since I was under the impression that I have to type the matter, choose the letter format, find the fax number for the official, etc. But later found our thats its as easy as clicking your mouse thrice.
We could have a section that tells people and members just how easy it is to send a web fax, and not having to search for the officials' fax numbers and not having to compose the letter, and such.
Lastly, launching a concerted and a planned membership drive and to reach all immigrant communites. For the fund raisers, and for memberships, we are still relying on a word of mouth which is not as efficient. IV could post some ads in those media that are immigrant friendly and has good reach.
It could also start assessing a fee for membership, and also try to reach corporate sponsors like those businesses that are immigrant owned and run. When these businesses contribute, IV can advertise them on its website as contributors, so they (the sponsors) get the business of immigrant friendly customers.
You have a lot of suggestions in there let me try and respond:
(1) Yes, we do have the ability to get in touch with our members by email. However, mass emails are a strategy to use when we want to launch a massive drive. We do send out regular newsletters, urging members to take action.
(2) We are working to make our webfax feature more transparent. I like your suggestion about letting people know how easy it is. Will try to get that in.
(3) About a concerted membership drive: I agree and we do have an ad running on Rediff; We are also trying to reach out to large organizations like NetIP.
(4) I think it would be counterproductive to charge a membership fee.
One of the big problems that any voluntary organization faces is that there are usually a lot of people with non-specific ideas and not enough people who will take an idea, come up with an action plan and execute it. We need many, many more volunteers who just take the initiative and execute.
We'd love it if you could help us by coming up with a concrete plan and execution strategy for any one of your suggestions. From idea, to steps to delivery.
I urge all the type-A get-things-done people out there to swing in to action!
best,
Berkeleybee
Wondering if the website administrator has the ability to send a mass email to all its members. This is to inform and urge all its members to send web faxes and be more involved in planned activities.
Also, I sent a webfax to all three required personnel, but was hesitant to act since I was under the impression that I have to type the matter, choose the letter format, find the fax number for the official, etc. But later found our thats its as easy as clicking your mouse thrice.
We could have a section that tells people and members just how easy it is to send a web fax, and not having to search for the officials' fax numbers and not having to compose the letter, and such.
Lastly, launching a concerted and a planned membership drive and to reach all immigrant communites. For the fund raisers, and for memberships, we are still relying on a word of mouth which is not as efficient. IV could post some ads in those media that are immigrant friendly and has good reach.
It could also start assessing a fee for membership, and also try to reach corporate sponsors like those businesses that are immigrant owned and run. When these businesses contribute, IV can advertise them on its website as contributors, so they (the sponsors) get the business of immigrant friendly customers.
You have a lot of suggestions in there let me try and respond:
(1) Yes, we do have the ability to get in touch with our members by email. However, mass emails are a strategy to use when we want to launch a massive drive. We do send out regular newsletters, urging members to take action.
(2) We are working to make our webfax feature more transparent. I like your suggestion about letting people know how easy it is. Will try to get that in.
(3) About a concerted membership drive: I agree and we do have an ad running on Rediff; We are also trying to reach out to large organizations like NetIP.
(4) I think it would be counterproductive to charge a membership fee.
One of the big problems that any voluntary organization faces is that there are usually a lot of people with non-specific ideas and not enough people who will take an idea, come up with an action plan and execute it. We need many, many more volunteers who just take the initiative and execute.
We'd love it if you could help us by coming up with a concrete plan and execution strategy for any one of your suggestions. From idea, to steps to delivery.
I urge all the type-A get-things-done people out there to swing in to action!
best,
Berkeleybee
bbct
05-02 10:56 AM
The IO will not issue an I-94 with the expiry date same as the new approval notice end date. You will be given an I-94 with the expiry date same as the visa expiry date on the passport. If you are using AP to enter, you will be given an expiry date of 1-year from the date of entry.
My wife travelled in July 2007 on H4 when my H1B was expiring on 09/30/2007. She showed the approval notice that was valid till 09/30/2010 and was still given the I-94 valid till 09/30/2007.
Should not be an issue. Dont forget to give the approval notice to the IO. Otherwise you will be given only till Aug 2009.
My wife travelled in July 2007 on H4 when my H1B was expiring on 09/30/2007. She showed the approval notice that was valid till 09/30/2010 and was still given the I-94 valid till 09/30/2007.
Should not be an issue. Dont forget to give the approval notice to the IO. Otherwise you will be given only till Aug 2009.
add78
06-11 08:56 AM
This is a first step in the full reinstatement of PP for 140. As USCIS has said before, due to the immense backlog they cannot adjudicate all 140 PPs in the 15-day window but they are in need of the extra $1500 that PP fetches them. This will enable them to get a little more $$ for a relatively smaller 140 cases upgraded to PP which they could adjudicate in 15 days. It also alleviates the stranded folks who could not extend H-1 if Perm was <365 and 140 pending. Let us see in time (a few months at least) how much backlog is cleared as USCIS diverts more resources to 140 cases.
more...
vedicman
01-04 08:34 AM
Ten years ago, George W. Bush came to Washington as the first new president in a generation or more who had deep personal convictions about immigration policy and some plans for where he wanted to go with it. He wasn't alone. Lots of people in lots of places were ready to work on the issue: Republicans, Democrats, Hispanic advocates, business leaders, even the Mexican government.
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
Like so much else about the past decade, things didn't go well. Immigration policy got kicked around a fair bit, but next to nothing got accomplished. Old laws and bureaucracies became increasingly dysfunctional. The public grew anxious. The debates turned repetitive, divisive and sterile.
The last gasp of the lost decade came this month when the lame-duck Congress - which struck compromises on taxes, gays in the military andarms control - deadlocked on the Dream Act.
The debate was pure political theater. The legislation was first introduced in 2001 to legalize the most virtuous sliver of the undocumented population - young adults who were brought here as children by their parents and who were now in college or the military. It was originally designed to be the first in a sequence of measures to resolve the status of the nation's illegal immigrants, and for most of the past decade, it was often paired with a bill for agricultural workers. The logic was to start with the most worthy and economically necessary. But with the bill put forward this month as a last-minute, stand-alone measure with little chance of passage, all the debate accomplished was to give both sides a chance to excite their followers. In the age of stalemate, immigration may have a special place in the firmament.
The United States is in the midst of a wave of immigration as substantial as any ever experienced. Millions of people from abroad have settled here peacefully and prosperously, a boon to the nation. Nonetheless, frustration with policy sours the mood. More than a quarter of the foreign-born are here without authorization. Meanwhile, getting here legally can be a long, costly wrangle. And communities feel that they have little say over sudden changes in their populations. People know that their world is being transformed, yet Washington has not enacted a major overhaul of immigration law since 1965. To move forward, we need at least three fundamental changes in the way the issue is handled.
Being honest about our circumstances is always a good place to start. There might once have been a time to ponder the ideal immigration system for the early 21st century, but surely that time has passed. The immediate task is to clean up the mess caused by inaction, and that is going to require compromises on all sides. Next, we should reexamine the scope of policy proposals. After a decade of sweeping plans that went nowhere, working piecemeal is worth a try at this point. Finally, the politics have to change. With both Republicans and Democrats using immigration as a wedge issue, the chances are that innocent bystanders will get hurt - soon.
The most intractable problem by far involves the 11 million or so undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States. They are the human legacy of unintended consequences and the failure to act.
Advocates on one side, mostly Republicans, would like to see enforcement policies tough enough to induce an exodus. But that does not seem achievable anytime soon, because unauthorized immigrants have proved to be a very durable and resilient population. The number of illegal arrivals dropped sharply during the recession, but the people already here did not leave, though they faced massive unemployment and ramped-up deportations. If they could ride out those twin storms, how much enforcement over how many years would it take to seriously reduce their numbers? Probably too much and too many to be feasible. Besides, even if Democrats suffer another electoral disaster or two, they are likely still to have enough votes in the Senate to block an Arizona-style law that would make every cop an alien-hunter.
Advocates on the other side, mostly Democrats, would like to give a path to citizenship to as many of the undocumented as possible. That also seems unlikely; Republicans have blocked every effort at legalization. Beyond all the principled arguments, the Republicans would have to be politically suicidal to offer citizenship, and therefore voting rights, to 11 million people who would be likely to vote against them en masse.
So what happens to these folks? As a starting point, someone could ask them what they want. The answer is likely to be fairly limited: the chance to live and work in peace, the ability to visit their countries of origin without having to sneak back across the border and not much more.
Would they settle for a legal life here without citizenship? Well, it would be a huge improvement over being here illegally. Aside from peace of mind, an incalculable benefit, it would offer the near-certainty of better jobs. That is a privilege people will pay for, and they could be asked to keep paying for it every year they worked. If they coughed up one, two, three thousand dollars annually on top of all other taxes, would that be enough to dent the argument that undocumented residents drain public treasuries?
There would be a larger cost, however, if legalization came without citizenship: the cost to the nation's political soul of having a population deliberately excluded from the democratic process. No one would set out to create such a population. But policy failures have created something worse. We have 11 million people living among us who not only can't vote but also increasingly are afraid to report a crime or to get vaccinations for a child or to look their landlord in the eye.
�
Much of the debate over the past decade has been about whether legalization would be an unjust reward for "lawbreakers." The status quo, however, rewards everyone who has ever benefited from the cheap, disposable labor provided by illegal workers. To start to fix the situation, everyone - undocumented workers, employers, consumers, lawmakers - has to admit their errors and make amends.
The lost decade produced big, bold plans for social engineering. It was a 10-year quest for a grand bargain that would repair the entire system at once, through enforcement, ID cards, legalization, a temporary worker program and more. Fierce cloakroom battles were also fought over the shape and size of legal immigration. Visa categories became a venue for ideological competition between business, led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and elements of labor, led by the AFL-CIO, over regulation of the labor market: whether to keep it tight to boost wages or keep it loose to boost growth.
But every attempt to fix everything at once produced a political parabola effect. As legislation reached higher, its base of support narrowed. The last effort, and the biggest of them all, collapsed on the Senate floor in July 2007. Still, the idea of a grand bargain has been kept on life support by advocates of generous policies. Just last week, President Obama and Hispanic lawmakers renewed their vows to seek comprehensive immigration reform, even as the prospects grow bleaker. Meanwhile, the other side has its own designs, demanding total control over the border and an enforcement system with no leaks before anything else can happen.
Perhaps 10 years ago, someone like George W. Bush might reasonably have imagined that immigration policy was a good place to resolve some very basic social and economic issues. Since then, however, the rhetoric around the issue has become so swollen and angry that it inflames everything it touches. Keeping the battles small might increase the chance that each side will win some. But, as we learned with the Dream Act, even taking small steps at this point will require rebooting the discourse.
Not long ago, certainly a decade ago, immigration was often described as an issue of strange bedfellows because it did not divide people neatly along partisan or ideological lines. That world is gone now. Instead, elements of both parties are using immigration as a wedge issue. The intended result is cleaving, not consensus. This year, many Republicans campaigned on vows, sometimes harshly stated, to crack down on illegal immigration. Meanwhile, many Democrats tried to rally Hispanic voters by demonizing restrictionists on the other side.
Immigration politics could thus become a way for both sides to feed polarization. In the short term, they can achieve their political objectives by stoking voters' anxiety with the scariest hobgoblins: illegal immigrants vs. the racists who would lock them up. Stumbling down this road would produce a decade more lost than the last.
Suro in Wasahington Post
Roberto Suro is a professor of journalism and public policy at the University of Southern California. surorob@gmail.com
aristotle
04-05 06:52 PM
You can get an extension using A's 140 only if it was not revoked.
Perm.. I was exactly in the same boat as u were but I went ahead and changed the job from company A to company B and got 3 year extension till 10/09. Then I went to India and got the visa stamped till 10/09. My new employer i.e. company B has now started processing my GC again.. Now, let us see if I can port my PD of 12/05 with company B.
My question is if I decide to move again to company C [Not gonna do] or my new employer i.e. company B fires me [U never know] i.e. in case if I do not have labor or 140 done with my new employer i.e. company B and say I ran out of H1B at the end of 10/09, then can I get further 3 year extension with company B or new company C on approved 140 from previous employer i.e. Company A?
Thanks!!
Perm.. I was exactly in the same boat as u were but I went ahead and changed the job from company A to company B and got 3 year extension till 10/09. Then I went to India and got the visa stamped till 10/09. My new employer i.e. company B has now started processing my GC again.. Now, let us see if I can port my PD of 12/05 with company B.
My question is if I decide to move again to company C [Not gonna do] or my new employer i.e. company B fires me [U never know] i.e. in case if I do not have labor or 140 done with my new employer i.e. company B and say I ran out of H1B at the end of 10/09, then can I get further 3 year extension with company B or new company C on approved 140 from previous employer i.e. Company A?
Thanks!!
more...
Siboo
07-27 02:16 PM
When you mark your calendar, mark it for 182 days to be safe. You never know USCIS and these employers.. Keep yourself safe from all the complications that might arise if you leave on 180th or 181st day (whether first day is included or not, can I leave on 180th day or do i have to wait for 180 days to complete blah blah.. ) :)
To be very very safe, make it 180 Business days.:D :D :D
To be very very safe, make it 180 Business days.:D :D :D
LayoffBlog
01-27 01:32 PM
Pfizer announced Monday that it has signed a deal to acquire the smaller drugmaker Wyeth for $68 billion, and tens of thousands of job cuts will follow.Pfizer spokesman Ray Kerins said that two waves of job cuts would occur in 2009. In the first, Pfizer said it would cut 10% of its 81,900 staff - [...]http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=layoffblog.com&blog=5255291&post=1233&subd=layoffblog&ref=&feed=1
More... (http://layoffblog.com/2009/01/26/pfizer-to-lay-off-tens-of-thousands/)
More... (http://layoffblog.com/2009/01/26/pfizer-to-lay-off-tens-of-thousands/)
more...
nonimmigrant
03-31 06:16 PM
Congratulations. Enjoy your freedom.
What is the process did you followed to port from EB3 to EB2 ?
New Labor with EB2 Job requirements
I-140 Approval
Port Over EB3 priority to EB2 after I-140 Approval
(or)
Do we have any other route to port over from EB3 to EB2.
What is the process did you followed to port from EB3 to EB2 ?
New Labor with EB2 Job requirements
I-140 Approval
Port Over EB3 priority to EB2 after I-140 Approval
(or)
Do we have any other route to port over from EB3 to EB2.
ntpatil
04-27 10:44 AM
Yes,
And that is the reason I wanted maximum check-in luggage with no carry on, so that she does not have any hassle while traveling.
And that is the reason I wanted maximum check-in luggage with no carry on, so that she does not have any hassle while traveling.
more...
solaris27
04-20 02:41 PM
6 months
d100763
06-22 09:26 PM
VDAMINATOR!
THAT BRA LOOKS LIKE IT WAS DRAWN WITH PHOTOSHOP!
You p0rn lover...
Touch�...:smirk:
THAT BRA LOOKS LIKE IT WAS DRAWN WITH PHOTOSHOP!
You p0rn lover...
Touch�...:smirk:
more...
ArunAntonio
01-03 03:32 PM
I pledge to contribute $40 a month. And more when ever I can.
-- Also guys lets keep the momentum going .. we need more people enrolled and every single one of us opening up their wallets.
-- Also guys lets keep the momentum going .. we need more people enrolled and every single one of us opening up their wallets.
thomachan72
11-10 02:47 PM
Never heard of this before. Wouldn't know what to do either. Can you call them and ask? or send an email? what does your attorney say? Was an educational evaluation done on this?
more...
chanduv23
12-24 09:13 AM
Congratulations to IV and its great leaders.
Congratulations to all the members for holding this fortress.
Congratulations to all the selfless volunteers who have dedicated time, skill, effort and money on IV.
We must also congratulate Anti immgrants, Dormant members, Freeloaders, people with no faith in hard/good work because you help in making the organization stronger day by day.
Congratulations to all the members for holding this fortress.
Congratulations to all the selfless volunteers who have dedicated time, skill, effort and money on IV.
We must also congratulate Anti immgrants, Dormant members, Freeloaders, people with no faith in hard/good work because you help in making the organization stronger day by day.
Queen Josephine
July 15th, 2004, 04:43 PM
I think the last 2 are the best! These are absolutely wonderful!
more...
fall2004us
09-01 01:00 PM
Nice article...
Its really saddening, parents do so much for their kids and when they grow old, the kids cant take good care of them ??
My own cousins are like that two cousins (vice president of a reputed company and another one is a surgeon) put their mom to old age home, another cousin didnt even have medical insurace for his parents reason being he is a Dr and he can take care of them during any situation.
Its really saddening, parents do so much for their kids and when they grow old, the kids cant take good care of them ??
My own cousins are like that two cousins (vice president of a reputed company and another one is a surgeon) put their mom to old age home, another cousin didnt even have medical insurace for his parents reason being he is a Dr and he can take care of them during any situation.
,_2006,_Miley_Cyrus.jpg "Category: TV Shows Wallpapers")
delhis_007
12-28 11:12 AM
Hi,
I am in a similar position and have decided to go back to school in USA. My PD is Jan 2004 EB2, and I am sure I am not going to hit the jackpot before Sep 07. Is there any possible way I can save my GC?
Thanks in advance.
Vijay
I am in a similar position and have decided to go back to school in USA. My PD is Jan 2004 EB2, and I am sure I am not going to hit the jackpot before Sep 07. Is there any possible way I can save my GC?
Thanks in advance.
Vijay
nk2006
07-05 12:58 PM
possible reasons
(i)USCIS dont want to see a large number applications - as Ombudsman report indicated their performance is measured based on how much time it took to process an application. If they accept 485 applications only to keep them longer it will skew their performance benchmarks to their disadvantage. (ii)Also they just dont want to work for the rest of this financial year. By making visas unavailable their work load might have come down dramatically.
(iii)Ego clashes between some higher ups between DOS and USCIS; OR the communication gap between these two orgs is just too much.
(iv) Too may anti-immigrant who wants to screw legal-immigrants at any given opportunity. This is possible too...on numbersusa website there are special instructions/appeals to USCIS staff to do a few things and also to get some info on H1b filings, I140 filings etc. Maybe these activist employees have grown in size with tacit support from higher ups.
Of course all of these are just speculations. BUT I still could not understand why USCIS went out of its way (processing 60k applicaitons in one month; 18k in one day is certainly going way toooooooo much out of their way based on their normal efficiency) to process. I am sure they might have approved many cases which they could not have done normally. Finding out this aspect should might yield a very good story for a journalist - we should highlight this aspect in our letters to media.
(i)USCIS dont want to see a large number applications - as Ombudsman report indicated their performance is measured based on how much time it took to process an application. If they accept 485 applications only to keep them longer it will skew their performance benchmarks to their disadvantage. (ii)Also they just dont want to work for the rest of this financial year. By making visas unavailable their work load might have come down dramatically.
(iii)Ego clashes between some higher ups between DOS and USCIS; OR the communication gap between these two orgs is just too much.
(iv) Too may anti-immigrant who wants to screw legal-immigrants at any given opportunity. This is possible too...on numbersusa website there are special instructions/appeals to USCIS staff to do a few things and also to get some info on H1b filings, I140 filings etc. Maybe these activist employees have grown in size with tacit support from higher ups.
Of course all of these are just speculations. BUT I still could not understand why USCIS went out of its way (processing 60k applicaitons in one month; 18k in one day is certainly going way toooooooo much out of their way based on their normal efficiency) to process. I am sure they might have approved many cases which they could not have done normally. Finding out this aspect should might yield a very good story for a journalist - we should highlight this aspect in our letters to media.
lostinbeta
10-03 02:18 AM
Glad I could help=)
tikka
08-07 07:56 PM
and bump///
No comments:
Post a Comment