indyanguy
09-26 10:21 AM
Any reply to my original question?
Thanks all
Thanks all
immuser
07-20 04:51 PM
http://www.immigration.com/newsletter1/dolsta1207.pdf
there were 144,000 PERM's done between oct 2006- march 2007
india, china have retro for both EB2 and EB3
mexico, philippines and bunch of other countries have retro for EB3
PERM is only for the Primary applicant. For I-485 every dependent of Primary applicant needs one separate application
Considering all these 750,000 I-485 filings in next 1 month sounds a reasonable estimate.
Many who had labor pending under the old system, applied in PERM also. So it is 144k minus duplicates. But, I have no idea know many are duplicates
there were 144,000 PERM's done between oct 2006- march 2007
india, china have retro for both EB2 and EB3
mexico, philippines and bunch of other countries have retro for EB3
PERM is only for the Primary applicant. For I-485 every dependent of Primary applicant needs one separate application
Considering all these 750,000 I-485 filings in next 1 month sounds a reasonable estimate.
Many who had labor pending under the old system, applied in PERM also. So it is 144k minus duplicates. But, I have no idea know many are duplicates
NKR
06-25 12:56 PM
Fully agree with you.
A thought comes to mind on reading your post.
Is that what the average Amrican wants us to do? Do they want us immigrants to be kept away from participating in innovation? Do they want us to keep working mundane jobs? Do they want us to lag behind them?
This is just a speculation no hard proofs but only a thought.
Isn�t this what the American companies want?. They get qualified people who keep doing the same job for less and churning millions for the companies. Also, the big companies are fighting to get H1s quota increased, they do not care about whether these people get GCs are not, being in H1 for long serves them right.
Isn�t this what many people here want?. They can boss over us for many years even if you are more qualified then them since you cannot change your profile.
Isn�t this what the government want?. American companies are making money, many people are happy. Then why change the situation?.
How much percent of the immigrants who get GC go on to become innovators and start their own company?. I would say less than 10%, that also could be a far fetched figure.
America gains more than it loses.
A thought comes to mind on reading your post.
Is that what the average Amrican wants us to do? Do they want us immigrants to be kept away from participating in innovation? Do they want us to keep working mundane jobs? Do they want us to lag behind them?
This is just a speculation no hard proofs but only a thought.
Isn�t this what the American companies want?. They get qualified people who keep doing the same job for less and churning millions for the companies. Also, the big companies are fighting to get H1s quota increased, they do not care about whether these people get GCs are not, being in H1 for long serves them right.
Isn�t this what many people here want?. They can boss over us for many years even if you are more qualified then them since you cannot change your profile.
Isn�t this what the government want?. American companies are making money, many people are happy. Then why change the situation?.
How much percent of the immigrants who get GC go on to become innovators and start their own company?. I would say less than 10%, that also could be a far fetched figure.
America gains more than it loses.
polapragada
09-14 05:45 PM
Keep aside porting the PD between EB3 to EB2.
Just try this
Say, you wanted to buy tickets to a show or travel, there are more than one counter which is issuing tickets. You have to choose some line at random. Obviously like the people Pallavi79 choose a line which is shorter in length. After some time person observed that other line is moving fast so wanted to jump to that line. Thats fine. If you try to jump into middle of the other line based on your time entered into 1st line. If you are demanding the position...Think the situation??
And after some time if you see EB3 row is runnign fast you will jump back there? Is this a game you think??
Just try this
Say, you wanted to buy tickets to a show or travel, there are more than one counter which is issuing tickets. You have to choose some line at random. Obviously like the people Pallavi79 choose a line which is shorter in length. After some time person observed that other line is moving fast so wanted to jump to that line. Thats fine. If you try to jump into middle of the other line based on your time entered into 1st line. If you are demanding the position...Think the situation??
And after some time if you see EB3 row is runnign fast you will jump back there? Is this a game you think??
more...
kevinkris
09-12 05:13 PM
Hi All,
Lots of people agreeing.
singhsa3, since you started it, finalize on what we all need to do.
Thanks
Lots of people agreeing.
singhsa3, since you started it, finalize on what we all need to do.
Thanks
rockstart
06-27 03:00 PM
Instead of telling them what they will lose, lets tell them what they gained from us and what they would not have if it were not for the immigrants.
If two thirds of all PhD's are foreign born. And 60% of Masters degree holders are also not US citizens. Now this is the best talent that US corporations need to keep up the competative edge. No infosys wipro can fill this void.
If two thirds of all PhD's are foreign born. And 60% of Masters degree holders are also not US citizens. Now this is the best talent that US corporations need to keep up the competative edge. No infosys wipro can fill this void.
more...
hopefulgc
09-12 11:41 AM
can we put up forum threads here for state chapters or some kind of direct link or page for each individual state chapter
Doing state chapters through list servs is just not working out.
In my opinion
(1) Community must unite
(2) People must come out of anonymity by providing true information
(3) People must walk the talk - just not open threads and keep discussing
(4) Efforts must be well organized - IV is a great organization - we have state chapters where people can organize themselves - helps us all to do things more effectively
The biggest issue is - everyone come here and open threads but it alll stops there - people join state chapters but do nothing - just want to get updates - and always blame IV for whatever happens and question IV and want to grill IV as to what IV is doing.
Can we all get organized?
Sanjeev - I am sorry I am digressing from the original plan of this thread - but lets face reality - what is the use of all these tangential efforts - you may get hundreds of replies on this thread - but is there a proper directive? No one knows what to do it all starts and ends in discussion and waste of valuble time doing nothing.
I would rather recommend
(1) Lets get organized
(2) Give out proper information
(3) Pledge wholehearted support
(4) Be committed
(5) Join a state chapter
(6) Expand the community
(7) Work hard
(8) gather support
(9) take initiatives to lead - support will follow
(10) Do not waste time on unnecessary predictions, discussing waste, roumors etc...
(11) Understand the effort - lobbying - understand that IV needs a lot of money for lobbying - please contribute - please raise funds
Is everyone ready to do the above?
Doing state chapters through list servs is just not working out.
In my opinion
(1) Community must unite
(2) People must come out of anonymity by providing true information
(3) People must walk the talk - just not open threads and keep discussing
(4) Efforts must be well organized - IV is a great organization - we have state chapters where people can organize themselves - helps us all to do things more effectively
The biggest issue is - everyone come here and open threads but it alll stops there - people join state chapters but do nothing - just want to get updates - and always blame IV for whatever happens and question IV and want to grill IV as to what IV is doing.
Can we all get organized?
Sanjeev - I am sorry I am digressing from the original plan of this thread - but lets face reality - what is the use of all these tangential efforts - you may get hundreds of replies on this thread - but is there a proper directive? No one knows what to do it all starts and ends in discussion and waste of valuble time doing nothing.
I would rather recommend
(1) Lets get organized
(2) Give out proper information
(3) Pledge wholehearted support
(4) Be committed
(5) Join a state chapter
(6) Expand the community
(7) Work hard
(8) gather support
(9) take initiatives to lead - support will follow
(10) Do not waste time on unnecessary predictions, discussing waste, roumors etc...
(11) Understand the effort - lobbying - understand that IV needs a lot of money for lobbying - please contribute - please raise funds
Is everyone ready to do the above?
matreen
10-17 01:58 AM
Guys,
I have already invoked my AC21 6 months before and joined a small consulting company, after four months I had an offer from client to join, I decided to join client as full time employee and working from past two months. Planning to send AC21 document by next month including offer letter etc.,
Now, my question is I have a part time job oppertunity to work from home for couple of hours in the weekend (tech support job - pay is not that great but it helps with current economic crises).
Can I allowed to work on part time job while I am working as a full time employee using AC21? (Remember I am on EAD - No more H1)
Is that going to cause any problem to my 485 process?
Will that be OK to run two payrolls on my social 1. Full Time 2. Part time?
I would appreciate your response as soon as possible, because I need accept the offer and follow the legnthy process - background check etc.,..
Thanks,
M
Issue/Background:
It seems USCIS is not following AC21 regulations in some cases � especially when underlying I140 is revoked by previous employer � and are incorrectly denying I485 applications. As we know, AC21 regulations and related guidelines, provide some relief and allow job changes without affecting the I485 application. As per these rules if the employee changes employment after 180 days of submitting I485 application, there is no need to redo I140 even-if old employer revokes the old I140.
In recent days USCIS seems to be denying lot of I485 applications � ignoring their own AC21 regulations. A few of IV volunteers (pd_recapturing, gc4me, chanduv et al) have started an effort to address this. You can get more info on this, at this thread: http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=21716.
This issue can affect a lot of us and it negates all the flexibility/relief that we acquired by getting EAD�s and advantages we got thru recent admin reform.
What needs to be done:
After some initial discussions and planning (thanks to pd-capturing, chandu, et al) it is decided to write letters to Ombudsman and service center heads to point out this and request them to correct it ASAP. Please participate and send letters. To succeed we need to send it in thousands.
Pasting the letter and the addresses below.
More info: (thanks to gc4me for addresses and letter template):
======================
Everyone please send the letter/email to 3 persons.
1. Ombudsman
2. Director, NSC
3. Director, TSC
======================
Ombudsman:
cisombudsman@dhs.gov
Mailing Address:
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman
ATTN: Recommendations
United States Department of Homeland Security
Mail Stop 1225
Washington, D.C. 20528-1225
=======================
Nebraska Service Center
Director: Gerard Heinauer
General Correspondence (Inquiries) (Sending applications or petitions to this address will delay their processing)
USCIS NSC
P.O. Box 82521
Lincoln, NE 68501-2521
NOTE: If using overnight delivery by any private service provider, send your package to:
USCIS
Nebraska Service Center
850 S Street
P.O. Box (Insert Correct P.O. Box Number)
Lincoln, NE 68508
Be sure to include the appropriate P.O. Box number on the shipping label.
Customer Feedback:
Contact:
Assistant Chief
Internal Security and Investigative Operations
USCIS, 111 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Suite 7000
Washington, DC 20529
or email: USCIS-COMPLAINT@DHS.GOV
=====================
Director: David Roark
General
Correspondence:
USCIS TSC
PO Box 851488
Mesquite, TX 75185-1488
Customer Feedback:
Contact:
Assistant Chief
Internal Security and Investigative Operations
USCIS, 111 Massachusetts Ave., N.W.
Ste 7000, Washington, DC 20529
============================
Letter
============================
Date: Today()
To
Mr. Michael Timothy Dougherty
The Ombudsman
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman
United States Department of Homeland Security
Mail Stop 1225
Washington, D.C. 20528-1225
Re: Issues caused by USCIS not following AC21 guidelines
Dear Sir,
This is to bring your attention to the issues caused by USCIS not following AC21 guidelines.
The American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000 (AC21) allows for a change of employer on any I-485 Adjustment of Status Application that has been pending for 180 days or more, without the need to file a new I-140 petition, provided the applicant�s new employment is in a similar/same occupation.
According to the Memo released by William R Yates on August 4th 2003, the original I-140 is valid if it is approvable and form I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days. (Attached for your reference is the memo dated August 4th 2003 from William R Yates and the follow-up memo dated May 12th 2005 with relevant sections highlighted).
Due to unreasonable delays caused by retrogression, many candidates have lawfully changed employers in accordance with the AC21 statute. Even though there is no requirement that USCIS be notified after a job change, some applicants have done so to prove that they are in compliance with this regulation. If the previous employer has withdrawn the previously approved I-140, AC21 guidelines state that if the applicant has not submitted evidence of a new qualifying offer of employment, the applicant be sent an NOID (Notice of Intent to Deny) to deny the I-485 application or a RFE (Request for Evidence) . If the response to the NOID/RFE is timely and indicates that the alien has a new offer of employment in the same or similar occupation, USCIS may consider the approved Form I-140 to remain valid with respect to the new offer of employment and may continue regular processing of the Form I-485.
Over the past few months, a disturbing pattern has emerged with cases where the applicant has changed employers. USCIS has started to deny I-485applications where the underlying I-140 has been withdrawn by the previous employer without issuing an NOID or RFE. Even those applicants who have notified USCIS of change in employers have had their I-485 denied.
After the denial of I-485, the applicant has to file a MTR (Motion to reconsider) with USCIS to re-open the case. In addition to the financial burden of filing and legal fees, the applicant has to stop working because of the denial of the I-485 until the case is re-opened. This could be anywhere from a month to a few months. Needless to say, employers are unwilling to keep the job position open for such a long period and the applicant in most cases is looking at potential loss of employment. The applicant who has followed the law to the fullest extent is unfairly punished on account of USCIS not following the AC21 provisions.
This is a request for you to intervene to ensure that the AC21 regulations are followed when adjudicating an I-485 application. If the applicant notifies USCIS of a change in employment under AC21, this should be added the applicant�s physical file and electronic records. If there is no such notification and the previous employer withdraws the I-140, the applicant should be issued a NOID/RFE instead of denying the I-485 application.
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact.
Thank you in advance for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter.
Thanks,
Your Name
Your Address
Your Phone Number
I have already invoked my AC21 6 months before and joined a small consulting company, after four months I had an offer from client to join, I decided to join client as full time employee and working from past two months. Planning to send AC21 document by next month including offer letter etc.,
Now, my question is I have a part time job oppertunity to work from home for couple of hours in the weekend (tech support job - pay is not that great but it helps with current economic crises).
Can I allowed to work on part time job while I am working as a full time employee using AC21? (Remember I am on EAD - No more H1)
Is that going to cause any problem to my 485 process?
Will that be OK to run two payrolls on my social 1. Full Time 2. Part time?
I would appreciate your response as soon as possible, because I need accept the offer and follow the legnthy process - background check etc.,..
Thanks,
M
Issue/Background:
It seems USCIS is not following AC21 regulations in some cases � especially when underlying I140 is revoked by previous employer � and are incorrectly denying I485 applications. As we know, AC21 regulations and related guidelines, provide some relief and allow job changes without affecting the I485 application. As per these rules if the employee changes employment after 180 days of submitting I485 application, there is no need to redo I140 even-if old employer revokes the old I140.
In recent days USCIS seems to be denying lot of I485 applications � ignoring their own AC21 regulations. A few of IV volunteers (pd_recapturing, gc4me, chanduv et al) have started an effort to address this. You can get more info on this, at this thread: http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=21716.
This issue can affect a lot of us and it negates all the flexibility/relief that we acquired by getting EAD�s and advantages we got thru recent admin reform.
What needs to be done:
After some initial discussions and planning (thanks to pd-capturing, chandu, et al) it is decided to write letters to Ombudsman and service center heads to point out this and request them to correct it ASAP. Please participate and send letters. To succeed we need to send it in thousands.
Pasting the letter and the addresses below.
More info: (thanks to gc4me for addresses and letter template):
======================
Everyone please send the letter/email to 3 persons.
1. Ombudsman
2. Director, NSC
3. Director, TSC
======================
Ombudsman:
cisombudsman@dhs.gov
Mailing Address:
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman
ATTN: Recommendations
United States Department of Homeland Security
Mail Stop 1225
Washington, D.C. 20528-1225
=======================
Nebraska Service Center
Director: Gerard Heinauer
General Correspondence (Inquiries) (Sending applications or petitions to this address will delay their processing)
USCIS NSC
P.O. Box 82521
Lincoln, NE 68501-2521
NOTE: If using overnight delivery by any private service provider, send your package to:
USCIS
Nebraska Service Center
850 S Street
P.O. Box (Insert Correct P.O. Box Number)
Lincoln, NE 68508
Be sure to include the appropriate P.O. Box number on the shipping label.
Customer Feedback:
Contact:
Assistant Chief
Internal Security and Investigative Operations
USCIS, 111 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Suite 7000
Washington, DC 20529
or email: USCIS-COMPLAINT@DHS.GOV
=====================
Director: David Roark
General
Correspondence:
USCIS TSC
PO Box 851488
Mesquite, TX 75185-1488
Customer Feedback:
Contact:
Assistant Chief
Internal Security and Investigative Operations
USCIS, 111 Massachusetts Ave., N.W.
Ste 7000, Washington, DC 20529
============================
Letter
============================
Date: Today()
To
Mr. Michael Timothy Dougherty
The Ombudsman
Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman
United States Department of Homeland Security
Mail Stop 1225
Washington, D.C. 20528-1225
Re: Issues caused by USCIS not following AC21 guidelines
Dear Sir,
This is to bring your attention to the issues caused by USCIS not following AC21 guidelines.
The American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000 (AC21) allows for a change of employer on any I-485 Adjustment of Status Application that has been pending for 180 days or more, without the need to file a new I-140 petition, provided the applicant�s new employment is in a similar/same occupation.
According to the Memo released by William R Yates on August 4th 2003, the original I-140 is valid if it is approvable and form I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days. (Attached for your reference is the memo dated August 4th 2003 from William R Yates and the follow-up memo dated May 12th 2005 with relevant sections highlighted).
Due to unreasonable delays caused by retrogression, many candidates have lawfully changed employers in accordance with the AC21 statute. Even though there is no requirement that USCIS be notified after a job change, some applicants have done so to prove that they are in compliance with this regulation. If the previous employer has withdrawn the previously approved I-140, AC21 guidelines state that if the applicant has not submitted evidence of a new qualifying offer of employment, the applicant be sent an NOID (Notice of Intent to Deny) to deny the I-485 application or a RFE (Request for Evidence) . If the response to the NOID/RFE is timely and indicates that the alien has a new offer of employment in the same or similar occupation, USCIS may consider the approved Form I-140 to remain valid with respect to the new offer of employment and may continue regular processing of the Form I-485.
Over the past few months, a disturbing pattern has emerged with cases where the applicant has changed employers. USCIS has started to deny I-485applications where the underlying I-140 has been withdrawn by the previous employer without issuing an NOID or RFE. Even those applicants who have notified USCIS of change in employers have had their I-485 denied.
After the denial of I-485, the applicant has to file a MTR (Motion to reconsider) with USCIS to re-open the case. In addition to the financial burden of filing and legal fees, the applicant has to stop working because of the denial of the I-485 until the case is re-opened. This could be anywhere from a month to a few months. Needless to say, employers are unwilling to keep the job position open for such a long period and the applicant in most cases is looking at potential loss of employment. The applicant who has followed the law to the fullest extent is unfairly punished on account of USCIS not following the AC21 provisions.
This is a request for you to intervene to ensure that the AC21 regulations are followed when adjudicating an I-485 application. If the applicant notifies USCIS of a change in employment under AC21, this should be added the applicant�s physical file and electronic records. If there is no such notification and the previous employer withdraws the I-140, the applicant should be issued a NOID/RFE instead of denying the I-485 application.
Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact.
Thank you in advance for your kind attention and cooperation in this matter.
Thanks,
Your Name
Your Address
Your Phone Number
more...
villamonte6100
04-02 01:38 PM
No wonder you do not like people complaining about things not moving fast enough. Dude, you got to eat something to know how it tastes.
If you are getting a GC sooner just because you are an Australian, you have no moral authority to preach people who are affected. This thread is not for you, you are welcome to visit other threads though.
You are entitled to your opinion.
If you are getting a GC sooner just because you are an Australian, you have no moral authority to preach people who are affected. This thread is not for you, you are welcome to visit other threads though.
You are entitled to your opinion.
anilsal
07-16 12:37 PM
have posted info on this campaign to their chapters. I am sure this high-five campaign will be a great success. Keep the fire on.
more...
srmeka
07-15 10:16 PM
Thanks
santb1975
05-22 07:58 AM
Good suggestion
Come forward and contribute for your own cause.
Come forward and contribute for your own cause.
more...
--mine--quote--Pictures--Ways-To-Say-ILY--p_large.jpg "tattoo quotes and sayings for")
kuhelica2000
09-15 05:13 PM
I wasn't planning on porting my PD until I read this nonsense "Injunction" threat. I will now port my PD; GCTest - go and file your injunction. If you don't have enough balls to do that I can lend you one.
That memo/document you pointed out is an interpretation. We have already said that USCIS's interpretation is incorrect. We intend to correct this interpretation with this lawsuit.
Infact, it would be wrong to call this a lawsuit.
We are aiming for an injunction (or a stay order) in step 1 of the lawsuit that would prevent USCIS from working on any interfiling/PD porting requests.
If the injunction is with retroactive effect, all the EBs (not just EB3) who have ported their PDs will have their cases frozen. USCIS would not be able to work on them.
The remainder of the lawsuit can take its sweet time... the injunction should serve the primary cause.
That memo/document you pointed out is an interpretation. We have already said that USCIS's interpretation is incorrect. We intend to correct this interpretation with this lawsuit.
Infact, it would be wrong to call this a lawsuit.
We are aiming for an injunction (or a stay order) in step 1 of the lawsuit that would prevent USCIS from working on any interfiling/PD porting requests.
If the injunction is with retroactive effect, all the EBs (not just EB3) who have ported their PDs will have their cases frozen. USCIS would not be able to work on them.
The remainder of the lawsuit can take its sweet time... the injunction should serve the primary cause.
skillet
06-18 01:06 PM
No.. They are not auditing..
more...
Raj12
01-22 05:35 PM
Labor certified in Jan 2007, RIR
EB2
PD: Sep 2004
EB2
PD: Sep 2004
pcs
07-06 08:51 AM
Please do this. It is worth every second of your time
more...
kshitijnt
02-09 09:18 PM
In months of June, Jul and Aug , many EADs & APs are up for renewal due to July07 fiasco. So by moving dates forward, USCIS can cash in lot of reveue as it has to issue only 1 yr EAD in that case. If the dates are not current, they will have to issue 2 yr EAD and although they dont mean to approve many cases, I tend to think they will keep moving dates forward.
pani_6
08-13 06:35 PM
New Action Item for EB-3
vdlrao
06-10 10:56 AM
The July 2008 Visa Bulletin has said Exactly the same, but in different words, what I have been saying for the past few months about the EB2-India and EB3-India Movements.
EB2 India will move very fast till 01 JAN 06 as because based on June 2007 bulletin, just before the july fiasco,( http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_3236.html ) the PD for China is 01 JAN 06. That means in EB2 Category except India and China every other country is current. So till India reaches 01 JAN 06 PD in EB2, all the spill overs will be moved to EB2 India,because the spill overs will be alloted based on the priority of old PD(Priority Date). By the time India EB2 reaches 01 JAN 06, China PD in EB2 will move further from 01 JAN 06 by using its 7% quota. So Inidia PD for EB2 again moves fast till that changed China PD using the spill overs. After that India and China will share the spill overs based on the PD priority. All this happens if and only if the USCIS works effectively and uses all the available visa numbers for the present fiscal year. My prediction for EB2 India PD is it touch 2005 /even cross few months in 2005 by the end of this year if USCIS works effectively.
For all Eb3s along with EB2s with PD after April 2005, the movement in the coming visa bulletins wont be much encoraging unless the new Obama government does something significant about employent based category or immigrationvoice does a fruitful lobbying. The doings of something by obama government to employment based category is not in our hands. The only thing we could do is to help IV and help ourrselves by contributing to it to reach its financial target for better lobbying. Or else wait for the Visa Bulletin every month with great hopes, sorry dreams, for your PD to become current, and satisfy with your EADs for years ahead.
EB2 India will move very fast till 01 JAN 06 as because based on June 2007 bulletin, just before the july fiasco,( http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_3236.html ) the PD for China is 01 JAN 06. That means in EB2 Category except India and China every other country is current. So till India reaches 01 JAN 06 PD in EB2, all the spill overs will be moved to EB2 India,because the spill overs will be alloted based on the priority of old PD(Priority Date). By the time India EB2 reaches 01 JAN 06, China PD in EB2 will move further from 01 JAN 06 by using its 7% quota. So Inidia PD for EB2 again moves fast till that changed China PD using the spill overs. After that India and China will share the spill overs based on the PD priority. All this happens if and only if the USCIS works effectively and uses all the available visa numbers for the present fiscal year. My prediction for EB2 India PD is it touch 2005 /even cross few months in 2005 by the end of this year if USCIS works effectively.
For all Eb3s along with EB2s with PD after April 2005, the movement in the coming visa bulletins wont be much encoraging unless the new Obama government does something significant about employent based category or immigrationvoice does a fruitful lobbying. The doings of something by obama government to employment based category is not in our hands. The only thing we could do is to help IV and help ourrselves by contributing to it to reach its financial target for better lobbying. Or else wait for the Visa Bulletin every month with great hopes, sorry dreams, for your PD to become current, and satisfy with your EADs for years ahead.
immm
07-18 03:27 PM
I am confused about receipt date?
Is receipt date the date when they do data entry into the system or is it the date when they receive the package even though they may do data entry a month later?
My application was sent on June, 14th and delivered on June 15th (I have the FedEx tracking info and signature page confirming 6/15).
The case status online based on receipt number (obtained by calling them a few times until I got lucky) says:
"On July 11, 2007, we received this I485 APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS, and mailed you a notice describing how we will process your case."
Not sure if the online status is referring to the receipt date or the notice date when it says "On July 11, 2007, we received" when, in fact, they received it on June 15th!!
.
Is receipt date the date when they do data entry into the system or is it the date when they receive the package even though they may do data entry a month later?
My application was sent on June, 14th and delivered on June 15th (I have the FedEx tracking info and signature page confirming 6/15).
The case status online based on receipt number (obtained by calling them a few times until I got lucky) says:
"On July 11, 2007, we received this I485 APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS, and mailed you a notice describing how we will process your case."
Not sure if the online status is referring to the receipt date or the notice date when it says "On July 11, 2007, we received" when, in fact, they received it on June 15th!!
.
addsf345
11-20 03:38 PM
Some benefits can be revoked automatically (I-140, I-485), some can be revoked only after determination is made by USCIS and a beneficiary is notified and has an opportunity to respond. EAD is one of the latter.
See e.g., 8 CFR Part 205 titled "Revocation of approval of petitions". It has two sections: 205.1 Automatic revocation and 205.2 Revocation on notice.
http://frwebgate4.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/PDFgate.cgi?WAISdocID=203798478322+8+2+0&WAISaction=retrieve
EAD is not listed in Sec. 205.1. Moreover, 8 CFR �274a.12(c) specifically lists reasons for automatic revocation. I-485 denial is not listed as such a reason. Therefore, EAD remains valid even after I-485 denial untill it expires or until USCIS director revokes it. I do not see any basis for a different legal interpretation.
See also this court of appeals (8th Cir.) decision where the court says that automatic revocation occurs only if a specific condition specified in the laws and regs is met:
http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/399/399.F3d.891.04-1132.html
"The district court thought that her adoptive father's petition for immediate relative status was automatically revoked when Taylor reached age 21, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. � 205.1(a)(3)(i)(F), but the record does not appear to support that conclusion. The automatic revocation occurs only if the alien reaches age 21 before commencing her journey to the United States (which Taylor did not) or if the alien reaches age 21 before a decision on a pending application for adjustment of status becomes final (and there is no evidence in the record that Taylor ever applied for adjustment of status). See 8 C.F.R. � 205.1(a)(3). Thus, it is possible that the petition for immediate relative status was not revoked when Taylor reached age 21, but rather � if the 1984 visa petition was "currently valid" as of her 21st birthday � automatically converted to an approved petition for classification as an unmarried daughter of a citizen of the United States, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. � 204.2(i)(2). See 8 U.S.C. � 1153(a)(1). In that case, Taylor may have been legally present throughout her time in the United States."
Thank you 'lazycis' for reconfirming this. Just 2 weeks back I used to think that keep working on H1B is lot safer than using EAD :o
See e.g., 8 CFR Part 205 titled "Revocation of approval of petitions". It has two sections: 205.1 Automatic revocation and 205.2 Revocation on notice.
http://frwebgate4.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/PDFgate.cgi?WAISdocID=203798478322+8+2+0&WAISaction=retrieve
EAD is not listed in Sec. 205.1. Moreover, 8 CFR �274a.12(c) specifically lists reasons for automatic revocation. I-485 denial is not listed as such a reason. Therefore, EAD remains valid even after I-485 denial untill it expires or until USCIS director revokes it. I do not see any basis for a different legal interpretation.
See also this court of appeals (8th Cir.) decision where the court says that automatic revocation occurs only if a specific condition specified in the laws and regs is met:
http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/399/399.F3d.891.04-1132.html
"The district court thought that her adoptive father's petition for immediate relative status was automatically revoked when Taylor reached age 21, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. � 205.1(a)(3)(i)(F), but the record does not appear to support that conclusion. The automatic revocation occurs only if the alien reaches age 21 before commencing her journey to the United States (which Taylor did not) or if the alien reaches age 21 before a decision on a pending application for adjustment of status becomes final (and there is no evidence in the record that Taylor ever applied for adjustment of status). See 8 C.F.R. � 205.1(a)(3). Thus, it is possible that the petition for immediate relative status was not revoked when Taylor reached age 21, but rather � if the 1984 visa petition was "currently valid" as of her 21st birthday � automatically converted to an approved petition for classification as an unmarried daughter of a citizen of the United States, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. � 204.2(i)(2). See 8 U.S.C. � 1153(a)(1). In that case, Taylor may have been legally present throughout her time in the United States."
Thank you 'lazycis' for reconfirming this. Just 2 weeks back I used to think that keep working on H1B is lot safer than using EAD :o
No comments:
Post a Comment