sumagiri
09-23 09:19 PM
If EB2 row perm hits 10000 apps thats it pd wont move a bit. That will happen as soon as hiring starts again. This will happen any time, if this not happen until sep 2010, then EB2 has a chance. There are about 15000 (approx) EB2 Row apps siiting ducks in Perm centers, if ROW PErm eb2 approvals start flowing then we are just stuck. It all depends on EB2 Row Now. That is the one we need to watch closely.
Any idea how many ROW EB3 pending in PERM?
Any idea how many ROW EB3 pending in PERM?
wallpaper Golden State Warriors v
tempy
09-09 08:33 AM
You must be kidding me if you cannot make out the difference between an approval and an RFE. It clearly states "Your Case Status: Decision"... What more do you want?
I was wondering why the status went backwards (from CPO to Decision) and if that that is a normal process.
Thanks,
I was wondering why the status went backwards (from CPO to Decision) and if that that is a normal process.
Thanks,
vbkris77
09-23 07:54 PM
I think we are assuming that this will continue to be the case through Oct 2010. What if DOL changes policies with PERM approval tomorrow or the economy starts improving by March? EB2 ROW is current and there will be quite a few PERM's from them which will be adjusted immediately. We'll have to wait till the Sep results are in and the data is adjusted with 2005 EB2 numbers. Hopefully all < 2005 should be taken care of for EB2.
Source OH law firm immigration-law.com
09/23/2009: Official PERM Labor Certification Application Processing Times as of 09/30/2009
U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Foreign Labor Certification has just released the current processing time of permanent labor certification applications as of the end of this month. The date represents the date the applications were first filed, which is also called priority date.
Final Reviews (Clean Cut Cases): December 2008
Audit Cases: October 2007
Standard Appeal Cases: August 2007
Gov't Error Appeal Cases: Current
The last four-month processing times confirm that even though its FY 2010 (10/01/2009-09/30/2011) budget proposal estimated that the PERM processing times would be nine (9) months, actually the nine-month processing time started in the second-half of FY 2009. Accordingly, the employers hiring permanent foreign workers must understand that at least for the next one year, processing times of PERM applications will not improve and should learn to live with it and plan accordingly in their recruitment and hiring practices. Foreign workers should also take the delayed processing times of permanent labor certification application in their journeys in nonimmigrant status, on top of the State Department's predicted visa number problems coming year.
Source OH law firm immigration-law.com
09/23/2009: Official PERM Labor Certification Application Processing Times as of 09/30/2009
U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Foreign Labor Certification has just released the current processing time of permanent labor certification applications as of the end of this month. The date represents the date the applications were first filed, which is also called priority date.
Final Reviews (Clean Cut Cases): December 2008
Audit Cases: October 2007
Standard Appeal Cases: August 2007
Gov't Error Appeal Cases: Current
The last four-month processing times confirm that even though its FY 2010 (10/01/2009-09/30/2011) budget proposal estimated that the PERM processing times would be nine (9) months, actually the nine-month processing time started in the second-half of FY 2009. Accordingly, the employers hiring permanent foreign workers must understand that at least for the next one year, processing times of PERM applications will not improve and should learn to live with it and plan accordingly in their recruitment and hiring practices. Foreign workers should also take the delayed processing times of permanent labor certification application in their journeys in nonimmigrant status, on top of the State Department's predicted visa number problems coming year.
2011 Another Warriors post, this
imv116
06-11 05:13 PM
Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L-1_visa
Look into the Top 20 L-1 Visa Users
L-1 visas are available to employees of an international company with offices in both a home country and the United States, or which intend to open a new office in the United States while maintaining their home country interests. The visa allows such foreign workers to relocate to the corporation's US office after having worked abroad for the company for at least one year prior to being granted L-1 status. The US office must be a parent company, child company, or sister company to the foreign company.
Link: http://travel.state.gov/visa/temp/types/types_1271.html#1
The reason for posting this is not to let every one know what L1 visa is or what it is meant for, we all know that, even L1 visa holders there employers know that. L1 visa is misused as another means to send people here to work on client side. Please research the means of reporting such violations and let every one be aware of that.
If companies want to send there people to work here at client side, let them do it the legal way through H1b.
Number of ways it will cause problems because of the misuse
Will replace local employees (that�s including citizens, GC holders, AOS, H1b)
Unlimited visa
Provides immigration in EB1 cat where as the same cat for a H1b holder requires unusually high qualification and research experience with significant proof and documentation
Provides spouses with work visa
3 years is significantly high to work on implanting parent companies product(as it is supposed to be)
Premium processing
And many more.
Look into the Top 20 L-1 Visa Users
L-1 visas are available to employees of an international company with offices in both a home country and the United States, or which intend to open a new office in the United States while maintaining their home country interests. The visa allows such foreign workers to relocate to the corporation's US office after having worked abroad for the company for at least one year prior to being granted L-1 status. The US office must be a parent company, child company, or sister company to the foreign company.
Link: http://travel.state.gov/visa/temp/types/types_1271.html#1
The reason for posting this is not to let every one know what L1 visa is or what it is meant for, we all know that, even L1 visa holders there employers know that. L1 visa is misused as another means to send people here to work on client side. Please research the means of reporting such violations and let every one be aware of that.
If companies want to send there people to work here at client side, let them do it the legal way through H1b.
Number of ways it will cause problems because of the misuse
Will replace local employees (that�s including citizens, GC holders, AOS, H1b)
Unlimited visa
Provides immigration in EB1 cat where as the same cat for a H1b holder requires unusually high qualification and research experience with significant proof and documentation
Provides spouses with work visa
3 years is significantly high to work on implanting parent companies product(as it is supposed to be)
Premium processing
And many more.
more...
aadimanav
01-03 12:56 AM
Part 2 continued....
USCIS delays have become so excessive in this arena that many foreign nationals have sought relief in federal court. The Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 (APA), which governs federal agency actions and decisions, requires that an agency resolve a matter presented to it within a "reasonable" time frame. See 8 U.S.C. 555(b). Using the APA, foreign nationals have argued that waiting for two or more years for a decision on an immigration application is "unreasonable" under the statute. The cases are divided, but a majority of courts have agreed that making a foreign national wait years and years just for a decision on his or her application is unreasonable. As a result, many judges have ordered the FBI and USCIS to complete pending name check cases within 60 or 90 days where a foreign national has been waiting for two or more years. Some judges have noted that security concerns are not to be taken lightly, but this only reinforces the fact that such issues should be resolved in a matter of weeks as opposed to years.
The success or failure of litigation in this arena ultimately turns on the court's reading of a jurisdiction-stripping provision embedded in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as amended by the Real ID Act of 2005. The INA precludes judicial review of any "decision or action" of the USCIS that is "specified [under INA] to be in the discretion" of the USCIS. See 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii). In defending challenges to delayed applications, the U.S. Attorney's office has argued that the adjudication of a green card application, including the pace of adjudication, is committed to the sole discretion of the USCIS, because the INA specifies that a decision to approve or deny a green card application is within the discretion of the USCIS. See 8 U.S.C. 1255(a).
None of the circuit courts have ruled on this issue, but the relationship between USCIS delay and the role of the judiciary has become a "national judicial debate" at the district court level. See Saleem v. Keisler , 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80044 (W.D. Wis. Oct. 26, 2007). Some courts have bought the government's argument, holding that a discretionary "action" includes every interim action taken along the way leading up to an ultimate decision on an application. See Safadi v. Howard , 466 F.Supp. 2d 696, 699 (E.D. Vir. 2006). Under this theory, a stalled name check is simply action along the way to a final decision. The majority of courts have rejected this reading of the statute, holding that USCIS' discretion only applies to the ultimate decision on an application, not the pace of its adjudication. As one court stated, "it would require Orwellian twisting of the word ["action"] to conclude that it means a failure to adjudicate." Saleem v. Keisler, supra. Similarly, U.S. District Judge Stewart Dalzell recognized that the INA grants discretion to the USCIS to grant or deny a green card application, but "national security does not require that it also have absolute discretion to delay such an application to Dickensian lengths." Cao v. Upchurch , 496 F.Supp. 2d 569, 574 (E.D. Pa 2007). Put simply, "there is a difference between the [USCIS'] discretion over how to resolve an application and the [USCIS'] discretion over whether it resolves an application." Singh v. Still , 470 F. Supp. 2d 1064, 1068 (N.D. Cal. 2007).
The U.S. Attorney's office has also argued that the USCIS is not required to make a decision on green card or naturalization applications since the INA does not specify a time frame for the agency's decision. See Assadzadeh v. Mueller , 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80915 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 31, 2007). The government's argument is based on Norton v. So. Utah Wilderness Alliance , 542 U.S. 55 (2004), where the U.S. Supreme Court held that a plaintiff can succeed in compelling an agency to act under the APA if and only if the action sought to be compelled is a "discrete action" that the agency is "legally required" to take. Under the government's theory, the USCIS cannot be compelled to act where its organic statute fails to require it to make a decision. But, under Norton , an agency's regulation with the force of law can create a legal duty. Arguably, the USCIS is legally required to act on applications presented to it, as its own regulations provide that it inform applicants of its decisions. See 8 C.F.R. 245.2(a)(5)(i) (green card applications); 8 C.F.R. 316.14(b)(1) (naturalization applications). Most judges in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania appear to accept this argument. For example, in Kaplan v. Chertoff , 481 F. Supp. 2d 370, 399 (E.D. Pa. 2007), Judge Eduardo Robreno held that the USCIS has a duty to adjudicate green card and naturalization applications, based, in part, on the agency's own regulations.
Once a court determines that its jurisdiction is not stripped under the INA, it usually faces little difficulty finding a cause of action under the APA. Of course, determining whether an agency has acted unreasonably is a fact-intensive inquiry, but the government's position does not look promising where the USCIS has failed to perform three distinct background checks for two or more years without any indication of special circumstances. See, e.g., Saleem v. Keisler, supra . The government has argued that flagging agency resources are to blame, but many courts find little sympathy for such posturing. In addressing the issue of agency resources, one court stated that the USCIS should take its complaints up with Congress. See Liang v. Attorney General , 07-cv-2349-CW (N.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2007). "The executive branch must decide for itself how best to meet its statutory duties; this Court can only decide whether or not those duties have been met." Id . Even factoring in flagging appropriations, the court held that a two-and-a-half-year delay is unreasonable as a matter of law. Id .
With more than 340,000 cases in the name check backlog, it is not clear when some foreign nationals will ever have their cases resolved at the agency level. At least with the advantageous decisions handed down from the federal district courts, foreign nationals have the hope of going into court to request an expeditious resolution to their name checks. In the majority of situations, it appears that litigation is the only option, but at least an option exists.
Please email the author at gforney@wolfblock.com with questions about this article.
USCIS delays have become so excessive in this arena that many foreign nationals have sought relief in federal court. The Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 (APA), which governs federal agency actions and decisions, requires that an agency resolve a matter presented to it within a "reasonable" time frame. See 8 U.S.C. 555(b). Using the APA, foreign nationals have argued that waiting for two or more years for a decision on an immigration application is "unreasonable" under the statute. The cases are divided, but a majority of courts have agreed that making a foreign national wait years and years just for a decision on his or her application is unreasonable. As a result, many judges have ordered the FBI and USCIS to complete pending name check cases within 60 or 90 days where a foreign national has been waiting for two or more years. Some judges have noted that security concerns are not to be taken lightly, but this only reinforces the fact that such issues should be resolved in a matter of weeks as opposed to years.
The success or failure of litigation in this arena ultimately turns on the court's reading of a jurisdiction-stripping provision embedded in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as amended by the Real ID Act of 2005. The INA precludes judicial review of any "decision or action" of the USCIS that is "specified [under INA] to be in the discretion" of the USCIS. See 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii). In defending challenges to delayed applications, the U.S. Attorney's office has argued that the adjudication of a green card application, including the pace of adjudication, is committed to the sole discretion of the USCIS, because the INA specifies that a decision to approve or deny a green card application is within the discretion of the USCIS. See 8 U.S.C. 1255(a).
None of the circuit courts have ruled on this issue, but the relationship between USCIS delay and the role of the judiciary has become a "national judicial debate" at the district court level. See Saleem v. Keisler , 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80044 (W.D. Wis. Oct. 26, 2007). Some courts have bought the government's argument, holding that a discretionary "action" includes every interim action taken along the way leading up to an ultimate decision on an application. See Safadi v. Howard , 466 F.Supp. 2d 696, 699 (E.D. Vir. 2006). Under this theory, a stalled name check is simply action along the way to a final decision. The majority of courts have rejected this reading of the statute, holding that USCIS' discretion only applies to the ultimate decision on an application, not the pace of its adjudication. As one court stated, "it would require Orwellian twisting of the word ["action"] to conclude that it means a failure to adjudicate." Saleem v. Keisler, supra. Similarly, U.S. District Judge Stewart Dalzell recognized that the INA grants discretion to the USCIS to grant or deny a green card application, but "national security does not require that it also have absolute discretion to delay such an application to Dickensian lengths." Cao v. Upchurch , 496 F.Supp. 2d 569, 574 (E.D. Pa 2007). Put simply, "there is a difference between the [USCIS'] discretion over how to resolve an application and the [USCIS'] discretion over whether it resolves an application." Singh v. Still , 470 F. Supp. 2d 1064, 1068 (N.D. Cal. 2007).
The U.S. Attorney's office has also argued that the USCIS is not required to make a decision on green card or naturalization applications since the INA does not specify a time frame for the agency's decision. See Assadzadeh v. Mueller , 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80915 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 31, 2007). The government's argument is based on Norton v. So. Utah Wilderness Alliance , 542 U.S. 55 (2004), where the U.S. Supreme Court held that a plaintiff can succeed in compelling an agency to act under the APA if and only if the action sought to be compelled is a "discrete action" that the agency is "legally required" to take. Under the government's theory, the USCIS cannot be compelled to act where its organic statute fails to require it to make a decision. But, under Norton , an agency's regulation with the force of law can create a legal duty. Arguably, the USCIS is legally required to act on applications presented to it, as its own regulations provide that it inform applicants of its decisions. See 8 C.F.R. 245.2(a)(5)(i) (green card applications); 8 C.F.R. 316.14(b)(1) (naturalization applications). Most judges in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania appear to accept this argument. For example, in Kaplan v. Chertoff , 481 F. Supp. 2d 370, 399 (E.D. Pa. 2007), Judge Eduardo Robreno held that the USCIS has a duty to adjudicate green card and naturalization applications, based, in part, on the agency's own regulations.
Once a court determines that its jurisdiction is not stripped under the INA, it usually faces little difficulty finding a cause of action under the APA. Of course, determining whether an agency has acted unreasonably is a fact-intensive inquiry, but the government's position does not look promising where the USCIS has failed to perform three distinct background checks for two or more years without any indication of special circumstances. See, e.g., Saleem v. Keisler, supra . The government has argued that flagging agency resources are to blame, but many courts find little sympathy for such posturing. In addressing the issue of agency resources, one court stated that the USCIS should take its complaints up with Congress. See Liang v. Attorney General , 07-cv-2349-CW (N.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2007). "The executive branch must decide for itself how best to meet its statutory duties; this Court can only decide whether or not those duties have been met." Id . Even factoring in flagging appropriations, the court held that a two-and-a-half-year delay is unreasonable as a matter of law. Id .
With more than 340,000 cases in the name check backlog, it is not clear when some foreign nationals will ever have their cases resolved at the agency level. At least with the advantageous decisions handed down from the federal district courts, foreign nationals have the hope of going into court to request an expeditious resolution to their name checks. In the majority of situations, it appears that litigation is the only option, but at least an option exists.
Please email the author at gforney@wolfblock.com with questions about this article.
gcbeku
08-12 02:37 PM
it looks like many folks got their approval one day after filing an SR - coincidence or a trigger? Is filing the SR somehow triggering the IOs to look at your file ?
However, many people who filed SR on the first working day of the month 08/02 were not approved the next day. Also, the many others who bombarded the USCIS with multiple requests/queries had to wait much longer or are still waiting.
It is almost like the IOs didn't like to be bothered on the first working day of this month (when the begin working on a fresh set of files) and also didn't like to be pushed too much.
Or is this all just a super coincidence for hundreds of people?
:confused:
However, many people who filed SR on the first working day of the month 08/02 were not approved the next day. Also, the many others who bombarded the USCIS with multiple requests/queries had to wait much longer or are still waiting.
It is almost like the IOs didn't like to be bothered on the first working day of this month (when the begin working on a fresh set of files) and also didn't like to be pushed too much.
Or is this all just a super coincidence for hundreds of people?
:confused:
more...
chanduv23
11-03 05:08 PM
check out my blog on AC21
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/blog.php?b=12
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/blog.php?b=12
2010 the Golden State Warriors
gc_chahiye
06-29 06:03 PM
I have a few theories on this. This is meant just to open discussion.
1) The USCIS and State department are not communicating at all. This is not at all uncommon within gov't agencies as we all know.
The State Dep't released the bulletin perhaps without realising the full ramifications. Having heard from the USCIS..........hey hey hey what the F&^% are you doing? They may have realised over the last few weeks what a mess they have on their hands. Now they are trying to undo it.
thats possible. I thought the Ombudsman also said something to this effect. that these three (DOL/USCIS/DOS) dont talk to each other as well as they should. Also, apparently visa dates are set by ONE person who does all the number crunching. that seems to be weird. There should be a more transparent mechanism of doing all this.
2) Another possibility I can think of, is that this is a grand plan(heck I almost said grand bargain) concocted by the USCIS to get 485s OUT of the system as much as possible while minimising those that can get IN. Hence you might see in the coming few weeks thousands of approval letters all dated the 2nd of July. That will allow them to clear their backlogs of pre-approved, approvable cases and clean the slate fresh for the new fees structure/new quota in the new year. Some of you might remember they retrogressed to unavailable around this time 2 yrs ago. They do these weird things in the 4th quarter.
the U two years ago was apparently because USCIS somehow used up more visas than they should, and ate up all the numbers from the next quarter. Apparently that was the only year they did not waste visa numbers.
I guess hte only reason they dont want applications IN the system is because it looks bad on them (# of backlog cases); otherwise whats the harm: take the file and stick it on a shelf. As the applicant keeps coming back for EAD/AP
keep milking them for money. win-win.
3) Of course the last option is their brains have the same IQ as that of any common critter that messes up your garden.
Pick your poison, it is all the same. I feel for everyone whose hopes were raised so high. It is truly inhumane of them. If they planned this, they should atleast have delayed the release of the July VB.
I would think its #1. The miscommunication across these govt. bodies. We pay the price, there will possibly be a lawsuit (which will be quickly settled) and some heads will roll.
1) The USCIS and State department are not communicating at all. This is not at all uncommon within gov't agencies as we all know.
The State Dep't released the bulletin perhaps without realising the full ramifications. Having heard from the USCIS..........hey hey hey what the F&^% are you doing? They may have realised over the last few weeks what a mess they have on their hands. Now they are trying to undo it.
thats possible. I thought the Ombudsman also said something to this effect. that these three (DOL/USCIS/DOS) dont talk to each other as well as they should. Also, apparently visa dates are set by ONE person who does all the number crunching. that seems to be weird. There should be a more transparent mechanism of doing all this.
2) Another possibility I can think of, is that this is a grand plan(heck I almost said grand bargain) concocted by the USCIS to get 485s OUT of the system as much as possible while minimising those that can get IN. Hence you might see in the coming few weeks thousands of approval letters all dated the 2nd of July. That will allow them to clear their backlogs of pre-approved, approvable cases and clean the slate fresh for the new fees structure/new quota in the new year. Some of you might remember they retrogressed to unavailable around this time 2 yrs ago. They do these weird things in the 4th quarter.
the U two years ago was apparently because USCIS somehow used up more visas than they should, and ate up all the numbers from the next quarter. Apparently that was the only year they did not waste visa numbers.
I guess hte only reason they dont want applications IN the system is because it looks bad on them (# of backlog cases); otherwise whats the harm: take the file and stick it on a shelf. As the applicant keeps coming back for EAD/AP
keep milking them for money. win-win.
3) Of course the last option is their brains have the same IQ as that of any common critter that messes up your garden.
Pick your poison, it is all the same. I feel for everyone whose hopes were raised so high. It is truly inhumane of them. If they planned this, they should atleast have delayed the release of the July VB.
I would think its #1. The miscommunication across these govt. bodies. We pay the price, there will possibly be a lawsuit (which will be quickly settled) and some heads will roll.
more...
letstalklc
08-21 11:46 AM
!!!!!!!!!!!!!Not all cell phones are included!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I dont think it's true, I saw these rates are under international calling plan, so we are not signing up to that plan, so I would strongly believe that all cell phone calls are included to India, the same thing you can see when we click on the 60 countires list.....so find out with the tech support guys and keep update here to get the accurate answer on this...
I dont think it's true, I saw these rates are under international calling plan, so we are not signing up to that plan, so I would strongly believe that all cell phone calls are included to India, the same thing you can see when we click on the 60 countires list.....so find out with the tech support guys and keep update here to get the accurate answer on this...
hair Golden State Warriors Court
gcdeal
07-11 12:35 PM
I have sent in a request to Rochester and Democratic Chronicle to publish the report in their News paper. I sent a brief message with a link from NY times. I hope they publish them.
more...
va_dude
08-25 02:22 PM
Vonage does work with a home security system, but they do no recommend using it for that purpose because then your security system is dependent on the internet to make the call out during an emergency.
hot the Golden State Warriors#39;
ajay
11-09 01:03 PM
I mailed those letters physically by mail. No replies yet though!!!
more...
house Orlando Magic v Golden State
patiently_waiting
09-25 07:01 PM
Click-2-Call allows you to call only "the vonage number" from PC.It makes the vonage number to ring and connect to the destination.
any settings need to be updated in vonage account for making the remote number to ring and connect to the destination ?
Thanks
any settings need to be updated in vonage account for making the remote number to ring and connect to the destination ?
Thanks
tattoo Boston Celtics v Golden State
bomber
06-29 05:38 PM
It is received date stamp, what they do after receiving. They do it immediately on the same day.
(area code 202) 663-1541 still reading June Visa bulletin. Did they revert back?
Isn't is written somwhere that if the last day of a month falls on a saturday or a sunday then they accept the applications on the next working day even if it falls under next month.
Last day of June is a saturday and so won't they have to accept the june applications on Monday???/
(area code 202) 663-1541 still reading June Visa bulletin. Did they revert back?
Isn't is written somwhere that if the last day of a month falls on a saturday or a sunday then they accept the applications on the next working day even if it falls under next month.
Last day of June is a saturday and so won't they have to accept the june applications on Monday???/
more...
pictures Houston Rockets v Golden State
shahzaib616
05-17 06:33 PM
Before I begin with my question, allow me to give you a brief overview of my case:
In the year 2000, I initially filed for Labor Certification.
In 2004, I received approval of my application for Employment Authorization (I-765).
In 2005, I was sent a letter from the USCIS indicating that my application was rejected because I failed to file my case prior to a certain date issued by the USCIS.
Pretty straight-forward, right? Wrong. You see, in the last letter I was sent by the USCIS it states that I failed to file my case promptly enough; I filed my case nearly a year before the deadline was set!
My lawyers and I have attempted to appeal the decision, however our attempt has been futile: our request for appeal has been denied.
I am unsure of what to do now... It is apparent that the USCIS messed up, but I cannot think of any way to reopen my case and prove it. My attorney has presented me with two options - in mid-June he will engage in a conference call with a senior individual at the Immigration Office, at which time he will present cases (including mine) which have been wrongfully denied; my second option is to sue the United States.
I am very unsure of what course of action to pursue now! My lawyer has kept my waiting all this time with stalls and meetings which he has stated will help my case, however with each passing meeting, it simply seems like he is giving me false hope... I really do not want to have to wait until mid-June, only to find out that I must wait even longer before my case is reopened.
Additionally, I am highly reluctant to sue the United States of America for messing up in the processing of my case. The judge presiding over my case will be a United States citizen - it would be like telling a child to kill his/her parent... it simply cannot happen! If I were to sue the United States of America, I would be fighting an uphill battle and risk deportation if I were to lose.
Please! Has anyone on here been rendered an unfavorable decision by the USCIS based on a mistake made by the Immigration office? What have you done to fix your case?
Attorneys: have any of your clients been put into this situation? What have you done to resolve the issue?
Everyone: I understand that a very small percentage of people are likely to be in the same boat that I am in, however regardless of whether or not you are in this situation, what would you do if you were in my shoes???
Would you sue the government and risk deportation? Would you wait endlessly, hoping that things become better, eventually? Or would you do something else? (If so, what?)
Thank you for taking the time to read this! For those of you who take even more time to respond to this post, thank you even more! I am truly grateful!!!
Sincerely,
Shahzaib
In the year 2000, I initially filed for Labor Certification.
In 2004, I received approval of my application for Employment Authorization (I-765).
In 2005, I was sent a letter from the USCIS indicating that my application was rejected because I failed to file my case prior to a certain date issued by the USCIS.
Pretty straight-forward, right? Wrong. You see, in the last letter I was sent by the USCIS it states that I failed to file my case promptly enough; I filed my case nearly a year before the deadline was set!
My lawyers and I have attempted to appeal the decision, however our attempt has been futile: our request for appeal has been denied.
I am unsure of what to do now... It is apparent that the USCIS messed up, but I cannot think of any way to reopen my case and prove it. My attorney has presented me with two options - in mid-June he will engage in a conference call with a senior individual at the Immigration Office, at which time he will present cases (including mine) which have been wrongfully denied; my second option is to sue the United States.
I am very unsure of what course of action to pursue now! My lawyer has kept my waiting all this time with stalls and meetings which he has stated will help my case, however with each passing meeting, it simply seems like he is giving me false hope... I really do not want to have to wait until mid-June, only to find out that I must wait even longer before my case is reopened.
Additionally, I am highly reluctant to sue the United States of America for messing up in the processing of my case. The judge presiding over my case will be a United States citizen - it would be like telling a child to kill his/her parent... it simply cannot happen! If I were to sue the United States of America, I would be fighting an uphill battle and risk deportation if I were to lose.
Please! Has anyone on here been rendered an unfavorable decision by the USCIS based on a mistake made by the Immigration office? What have you done to fix your case?
Attorneys: have any of your clients been put into this situation? What have you done to resolve the issue?
Everyone: I understand that a very small percentage of people are likely to be in the same boat that I am in, however regardless of whether or not you are in this situation, what would you do if you were in my shoes???
Would you sue the government and risk deportation? Would you wait endlessly, hoping that things become better, eventually? Or would you do something else? (If so, what?)
Thank you for taking the time to read this! For those of you who take even more time to respond to this post, thank you even more! I am truly grateful!!!
Sincerely,
Shahzaib
dresses Phoenix Suns v Golden State
nixstor
07-10 07:58 PM
Guys, Paula John now is going to talk about our issue, stay tuned..........
Is she done?
Is she done?
more...
makeup Golden State Warriors Logo
JaiHo
09-24 02:42 PM
If there are 140K visas then EB3 category will get 140,000%28.7 = 40180
NACARA program = 40180-5000=35180
(refer Visa Bulletin October 2009 (http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4575.html)
Employment Third Preference Other Workers Category: Section 203(e) of the NACARA, as amended by Section 1(e) of Pub. L. 105-139, provides that once the Employment Third Preference Other Worker (EW) cut-off date has reached the priority date of the latest EW petition approved prior to November 19, 1997, the 10,000 EW numbers available for a fiscal year are to be reduced by up to 5,000 annually beginning in the following fiscal year. This reduction is to be made for as long as necessary to offset adjustments under the NACARA program. Since the EW cut-off date reached November 19, 1997 during Fiscal Year 2001, the reduction in the EW annual limit to 5,000 began in Fiscal Year 2002)
deduct 15% for consular processing = 29903
again consider 5 different Chargeability Areas
such as CHINA mainland born, INDIA, MEXICO, PHILIP-PINES and rest = 29903/5= 5980
Worst case scenario, USCIS will have 5980 visas available for FY 2010.
Now, if you compare data published by USCIS on pending cases can we guess
we should see forward movement for EB3I at least July-2002 by end of FY 2010 ?
Is it fair assessment?
NACARA program = 40180-5000=35180
(refer Visa Bulletin October 2009 (http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_4575.html)
Employment Third Preference Other Workers Category: Section 203(e) of the NACARA, as amended by Section 1(e) of Pub. L. 105-139, provides that once the Employment Third Preference Other Worker (EW) cut-off date has reached the priority date of the latest EW petition approved prior to November 19, 1997, the 10,000 EW numbers available for a fiscal year are to be reduced by up to 5,000 annually beginning in the following fiscal year. This reduction is to be made for as long as necessary to offset adjustments under the NACARA program. Since the EW cut-off date reached November 19, 1997 during Fiscal Year 2001, the reduction in the EW annual limit to 5,000 began in Fiscal Year 2002)
deduct 15% for consular processing = 29903
again consider 5 different Chargeability Areas
such as CHINA mainland born, INDIA, MEXICO, PHILIP-PINES and rest = 29903/5= 5980
Worst case scenario, USCIS will have 5980 visas available for FY 2010.
Now, if you compare data published by USCIS on pending cases can we guess
we should see forward movement for EB3I at least July-2002 by end of FY 2010 ?
Is it fair assessment?
girlfriend vs Golden State Warriors
vkrishn
08-13 01:20 PM
did they contact you after this email? or any LUD on your case?
Nope. Nothing Yet. Its atleast better than the script response that i get from NSC.
Nope. Nothing Yet. Its atleast better than the script response that i get from NSC.
hairstyles Golden State Warriors. hot
sravani
05-17 11:03 AM
who gets the EAD/AP attorney or applicant at his home address. Please tell me if anybody knows
Thanks
EAD and AP belongs to the applicant and Applicant gets them directly.
Thanks
EAD and AP belongs to the applicant and Applicant gets them directly.
admin
02-20 02:41 PM
Can someone explain why it seems harder to find backers in the house than in the senate for immigration reform (even the employment based legal immigration)? If we understand this, maybe it will help us focus our lobbying efforts better. Just a thought.
arihant,
The constituency of a Senator is the entire state while that of a House Rep is usually much, much smaller. So the Senator needs to make sure that all his actions are more 'Inclusive' and do not offend a lot of people.
But since the House Rep has much fewer and probably much more homogeneous set of people, the needs of his/her constituents are not that diverse and hence they can afford to take a hardline stance in many cases.
arihant,
The constituency of a Senator is the entire state while that of a House Rep is usually much, much smaller. So the Senator needs to make sure that all his actions are more 'Inclusive' and do not offend a lot of people.
But since the House Rep has much fewer and probably much more homogeneous set of people, the needs of his/her constituents are not that diverse and hence they can afford to take a hardline stance in many cases.
pitha
09-26 10:38 AM
cir failed because the senate did not have a filibuster proof majority (60) to pass cir. This time the democrats are expected to gain 4 to 5 seats in the senate, that will take there majority to 54 or 55 from the current 50 (49 +liberman). With a majority of 54 or 55 the filibuster will not happen again in senate and cir will pass in the senate.
The difference between Bush and obama in calling for cir is that Bush was an unpopular lame duck president, his party was a minority in both the house and senate. Obama if elected president would have the democrats in control of both the house and senate, therefore when obama says he wants to pass cir, it will happen, so take it seriously and dont live in a fantasy that CIR will fail again.
to all those people who cliam that cir won't be bad, please, please name some provisions that were good for Eb immigrants. Please dont use words like "hope", might" etc,durbin wants to knock the living daylights out of EB immigrants. I want to know if there was anything good in cir, not good things you hope to be in cir
These are a list of bad things that were in cir and will be in durbin cir
-DId cir have stem exemption? answer no
-Did cir have visa recapture? answer no
-Did cir increase the eb quota to reduce the backlog? answer no
-Did cir exempt the existing EB applicants from the new "points based
system", answer this seems to be a gray area, no clear answer (there is a
debate about this)
-Did cir have draconian restrictions on H1, answer yes
if there are any more nagatives please add to the list.
guys, the reason behind this post is not to pick a fight with anyone or to win an argument, but to look at the facts and realize the deep shit we will be in and address the issues. Just like a sick patient will expire if he lives in denial and does not take his medicine, we the eb immigrants will expire with cir if we dont realize we will be sick with cir and start looking for medicine.
The difference between Bush and obama in calling for cir is that Bush was an unpopular lame duck president, his party was a minority in both the house and senate. Obama if elected president would have the democrats in control of both the house and senate, therefore when obama says he wants to pass cir, it will happen, so take it seriously and dont live in a fantasy that CIR will fail again.
to all those people who cliam that cir won't be bad, please, please name some provisions that were good for Eb immigrants. Please dont use words like "hope", might" etc,durbin wants to knock the living daylights out of EB immigrants. I want to know if there was anything good in cir, not good things you hope to be in cir
These are a list of bad things that were in cir and will be in durbin cir
-DId cir have stem exemption? answer no
-Did cir have visa recapture? answer no
-Did cir increase the eb quota to reduce the backlog? answer no
-Did cir exempt the existing EB applicants from the new "points based
system", answer this seems to be a gray area, no clear answer (there is a
debate about this)
-Did cir have draconian restrictions on H1, answer yes
if there are any more nagatives please add to the list.
guys, the reason behind this post is not to pick a fight with anyone or to win an argument, but to look at the facts and realize the deep shit we will be in and address the issues. Just like a sick patient will expire if he lives in denial and does not take his medicine, we the eb immigrants will expire with cir if we dont realize we will be sick with cir and start looking for medicine.
No comments:
Post a Comment